翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ Baker Township, Morgan County, Indiana ・ Baker Township, O'Brien County, Iowa ・ Baker Township, Osceola County, Iowa ・ Baker Township, Randolph County, Arkansas ・ Baker Township, Stevens County, Minnesota ・ Baker Trail ・ Baker University ・ Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) ・ Baker v T E Hopkins & Son Ltd ・ Baker v Willoughby ・ Baker v. Carr ・ Baker v. Morton ・ Baker v. Nelson ・ Baker v. Selden ・ Baker v. Vermont ・ Baker v. Wade ・ Baker Valley Unified School District ・ Baker valve gear ・ Baker Village (Columbus, Georgia) ・ Baker Way ・ Baker Wilbraham baronets ・ Baker Wildcats ・ Baker Woodframe Elevator ・ Baker Woodframe Grain Elevator ・ Baker's Bay ・ Baker's Bay Golf & Ocean Club ・ Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Musicians ・ Baker's Camp Covered Bridge ・ Baker's Chocolate (brand) ・ Baker's Cove Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク Baker v. Wade ： ウィキペディア英語版 Baker v. Wade ''Baker v. Wade'' 563 F.Supp 1121 (N.D. Tex. 1982), rev'd 769 F.2nd 289 (5th Cir. 1985) (en banc) cert denied 478 US 1022 (1986) is a federal lawsuit challenging the legality of the sodomy law of the state of Texas. Plaintiff Donald Baker contended that the law violated his rights to privacy and equal protection. After a victory at trial, an appellate court reversed the lower court's decision and in the wake of its decision in ''Bowers v. Hardwick'' the Supreme Court of the United States refused to review it. ==Background== In 1974, Texas adopted a revised Penal Code which included section 21.06: "A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex." The law carried a maximum penalty of $200 but the existence of the law served to stigmatize LGBT residents of Texas as criminals. In 1976 in ''Doe v. Commonwealth's Attorney of Richmond'' (425 US 901) the United States Supreme Court upheld the sodomy law of the Commonwealth of Virginia as constitutional. A number of gay rights organizations in Texas sought to repeal the state's sodomy law legislatively but were unsuccessful. The Texas Human Rights Foundation (THRF), composed largely of attorneys from across the state, believed that the ''Doe'' case failed because the plaintiff was anonymous, and so conducted a search to find someone to be the named (and visible) plaintiff in a test case to challenge the law on Constitutional grounds before the federal court in Dallas, Texas. Donald F. Baker, president of the Dallas Gay Alliance and a Dallas teacher who had lost his job with the Dallas Independent School District after coming out in a television interview, agreed to be the sole plaintiff, and the suit was filed on November 19, 1979, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The suit named Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade and Dallas city attorney Lee Holt as defendants and, because THRF wanted any affirmative ruling to apply statewide, included each of the 1,085 city, county and district attorneys in the state as part of the defendant class. The Texas Attorney General's office intervened on behalf of the state, but no one else in the defendant class intervened. The case went to trial before US District Judge Jerry Buchmeyer in June 1981 and lasted two days. On August 17, 1982, Buchmeyer ruled in favor of Baker on Constitutional grounds, finding that the law violated Baker's right to personal privacy and equal protection under the laws. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Baker v. Wade」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.