Difference between revisions of "Goodridge v. Department of Public Health"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
GregLarson (talk | contribs) m (categorize) |
(wikify) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
In '''''Goodridge v. Department of Public Health''''', 440 Mass. 309 (2003), the [[Massachusetts]] Supreme Court declared it to be unconstitutional for the legislature not to grant same-sex [[marriage]] licenses. The Court, in an extraordinary order, gave the [[Massachusetts]] legislature 180 days to pass a law in favor of same-sex [[marriage]]. | In '''''Goodridge v. Department of Public Health''''', 440 Mass. 309 (2003), the [[Massachusetts]] Supreme Court declared it to be unconstitutional for the legislature not to grant same-sex [[marriage]] licenses. The Court, in an extraordinary order, gave the [[Massachusetts]] legislature 180 days to pass a law in favor of same-sex [[marriage]]. | ||
| − | The decision split 4-3, with the swing vote relying on the state [[Equal Rights Amendment]]. Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, a native of South Africa, cited a [[Canadian]] court in her opinion. One writer for the journal ''Legal Affairs'' described Marshall as "an advocate of mining the work of foreign courts,"<ref>Emily Bazelon, "A Bold Stroke," ''Legal Affairs'' and Harvard law , May-June 2004.</ref> professor Martha Minow, who has long known Justice Marshall, said that ''Goodridge'' "is like a South Africa decision." | + | The decision split 4-3, with the swing vote relying on the state [[Equal Rights Amendment]]. Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, a native of [[South Africa]], cited a [[Canadian]] court in her opinion. One writer for the journal ''Legal Affairs'' described Marshall as "an advocate of mining the work of foreign courts,"<ref>Emily Bazelon, "A Bold Stroke," ''Legal Affairs'' and Harvard law, May-June 2004.</ref> professor Martha Minow, who has long known Justice Marshall, said that ''Goodridge'' "is like a South Africa decision." |
== References == | == References == | ||
Revision as of 16:20, July 7, 2009
In Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309 (2003), the Massachusetts Supreme Court declared it to be unconstitutional for the legislature not to grant same-sex marriage licenses. The Court, in an extraordinary order, gave the Massachusetts legislature 180 days to pass a law in favor of same-sex marriage.
The decision split 4-3, with the swing vote relying on the state Equal Rights Amendment. Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, a native of South Africa, cited a Canadian court in her opinion. One writer for the journal Legal Affairs described Marshall as "an advocate of mining the work of foreign courts,"[1] professor Martha Minow, who has long known Justice Marshall, said that Goodridge "is like a South Africa decision."
References
- ↑ Emily Bazelon, "A Bold Stroke," Legal Affairs and Harvard law, May-June 2004.