翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ Goodrich, Tennessee
・ Goodrich, Texas
・ Goodrich, Wisconsin
・ Goodrich-Ramus Barn
・ Goodrick
・ Goodricke
・ Goodricke baronets
・ Goodricke College, York
・ Goodricke National Chess Academy
・ Goodricke-Pigott Observatory
・ Goodridge
・ Goodridge (surname)
・ Goodridge Corners, Edmonton
・ Goodridge Roberts
・ Goodridge Township, Pennington County, Minnesota
Goodridge v. Department of Public Health
・ Goodridge, Alberta
・ Goodridge, Minnesota
・ Goodrington
・ Goodrington Sands
・ Goodrington Sands railway station
・ Goodrow
・ Goods (album)
・ Goods and services
・ Goods and Services Tax
・ Goods and services tax (Australia)
・ Goods and services tax (Canada)
・ Goods and services tax (Hong Kong)
・ Goods and Services Tax (India) Bill
・ Goods and Services Tax (Malaysia)


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

Goodridge v. Department of Public Health : ウィキペディア英語版
Goodridge v. Department of Public Health

''Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health'', 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003), is a landmark state appellate court case dealing with same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. The November 18, 2003, decision was the first by a U.S. state's highest court to find that same-sex couples had the right to marry.
==Case==
On April 11, 2001, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) sued the Massachusetts Department of Health in Superior Court on behalf of seven same-sex couples, all residents of Massachusetts, who had been denied marriage licenses in March and April 2001. All the plaintiffs had been in long-term relationships with their partners and four of the couples were raising a total of five children. The Department's responsibilities included setting policies under which city and town clerks issue marriage licenses.
After holding a hearing in March 2002 at which GLAD attorney Jennifer Levi argued on behalf of the plaintiff couples, Superior Court Judge Thomas Connolly ruled in favor of the Department of Health on May 7, 2002. He wrote: "While this court understands the reasons for the plaintiffs' request to reverse the Commonwealth's centuries-old legal tradition of restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples, their request should be directed to the Legislature, not the courts". He noted that the legislature had recently defeated same-sex marriage legislation and defended that as a rational decision rooted in the historical definition of marriage and its association with child rearing:
The plaintiffs appealed directly to the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC), which heard arguments on March 4, 2003. Mary Bonauto of GLAD argued the case for the plaintiffs. Assistant Attorney General Judith Yogman represented the DPH.
Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly argued in his brief that the Court should defer to the legislature's judgment of "the broader public interest" and recognize that "same-sex couples cannot procreate on their own and therefore cannot accomplish the 'main object' ... of marriage as historically understood."
Amicus briefs were submitted on behalf of the Boston Bar Association, the Massachusetts Bar Association, the Urban League of Eastern Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Family Institute, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, The Common Good Foundation, the Massachusetts Citizens Alliance, the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, The National Legal Foundation, the Marriage Law Project, the Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry, the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, Coalition gaie et lesbienne du Québec, the Free Market Foundation, the Massachusetts Psychiatric Society, Agudath Israel of America, several Attorneys General (including those of Nebraska, Utah, and South Dakota), and a variety of individuals.〔

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「Goodridge v. Department of Public Health」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.