|
''Strauss v. Horton'' 46 Cal.4th 364, 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 591, 207 P.3d 48, was the consolidation of three lawsuits following the passage of California's Proposition 8 on November 4, 2008, which went into effect on November 5. The suits were filed by a number of gay couples and governmental entities. Three of these six were accepted by the Supreme Court of California to be heard together. The oral arguments were made in San Francisco on March 5, 2009. These cases were new to the California Supreme Court, and Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar stated that it will set precedent as "no previous case had presented the question of whether an initiative could be used to take away fundamental rights".〔 The court rendered its decision on May 26, 2009. The ruling established that Proposition 8 was valid as voted, but that marriages performed before it went into effect would remain valid. On June 26, 2013, ''Strauss v. Horton'' was mooted by ''Hollingsworth v. Perry''.〔http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/26/19151971-supreme-court-strikes-down-defense-of-marriage-act-paves-way-for-gay-marriage-to-resume-in-california?lite〕 ==Background== On November 13, 2008, the California Supreme Court asked state Attorney General Jerry Brown to reply by November 17, 2008, to a number of lawsuits challenging the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage. The filing the court requested from the Attorney General was not to address the ballot measure's validity, but to focus on whether the justices should accept the suits for review and whether Proposition 8 should be suspended while they decide the case, said Christopher Krueger, a senior assistant attorney general. On November 17, 2008, the Attorney General urged the court to hear these cases in order to decide the important legal issues presented, but also argued that the court should not suspend Proposition 8. On November 19, 2008, the California Supreme Court accepted three lawsuits (''Strauss et al. v. Horton'', ''Tyler et al. v. State of California et al.'', and ''City and County of San Francisco et al. v. Horton et al.'') challenging Proposition 8 and said that it would hear the cases together, but denied the requests to stay its enforcement.〔 Three additional lawsuits (''Asian Pacific American Legal Center et al. v. Horton et al.'', ''Equal Rights Advocates and California Women's Law Center v. Horton et al.'', and ''California Council of Churches et al. v. Horton et al.'') on the matter were denied hearing, but those petitioners were invited by the court to file amicus briefs in the cases which were accepted. 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「Strauss v. Horton」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|