Xollingsvort va Perri - Hollingsworth v. Perry

Xollingsvort va Perri
Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Oliy sudi
2013 yil 26 martda bahslashdi 2013 yil 26 iyunda qaror qilingan
To'liq ish nomi	Dennis Xollingsvort va boshq., Petitsionerlarga qarshi Kristin M. Perri va boshq.
Docket no.	12-144
Iqtiboslar	570 BIZ. 693 (Ko'proq ) 133 S. Ct. 2652; 186 LED. 2d 768
Dalil	Og'zaki bahs
Ish tarixi
Oldin	Da'vogarlar uchun hukm, Perri Shvartseneggerga qarshi, 704 F. Ta'minot. 2d 921 (ND Cal. 2010); Sertifikatlangan savol, 628 F.3d 1191 (9-chi 2011 yil); Javob berdi, Perri va Braunga qarshi, 52 Kal. 4-chi 1116 (2011); Tasdiqlangan, 671 F.3d 1052 (9-chi 2012 yil); Sertifikat. berilgan, 568 BIZ. 1066 (2012).
Xolding
Quyi sudlar qaror chiqargandan keyin Kaliforniyada bir jinsli nikohni taqiqlash huquqining konstitutsiyaga xilof ravishda buzilishi edi qonun bo'yicha teng himoya, Oliy sud qaroriga ko'ra, bir jinsli nikohga qarshi bo'lgan raqiblar yo'q edi tik turib ular qaroridan zarar ko'rganligini namoyish qila olmaganligi sababli aralashish.
Sudga a'zolik
Bosh sudya Jon Roberts Associates Adliya Antonin Skaliya  · Entoni Kennedi Klarens Tomas  · Rut Bader Ginsburg Stiven Breyer  · Samuel Alito Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Ishning xulosalari
Ko'pchilik	Roberts, unga Skaliya, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan qo'shildi
Turli xil	Kennedi, unga Tomas, Alito, Sotomayor qo'shildi
Amaldagi qonunlar
AQSh Konst. San'at III

Xollingsvort va Perri Kaliforniya shtatida bir jinsli nikohni qonuniylashtirgan Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlarining bir qator federal sud ishlari edi. Ish 2009 yilda boshlangan Kaliforniyaning Shimoliy okrugi uchun AQSh okrug sudi, bir jinsli nikohni taqiqlash buzilishini aniqladi qonun bo'yicha teng himoya. Ushbu qaror ovoz berish tashabbusini bekor qildi Taklif 8, bir jinsli nikohni taqiqlagan. Kaliforniya shtati 8-taklifni himoya qilishdan bosh tortgandan so'ng, 8-taklifning rasmiy homiylari aralashib, Oliy sudga murojaat qilishdi. Ikkala hokimning hokimligi davrida ham sud jarayoni boshlangan Arnold Shvartsenegger va Jerri Braun, va shunday qilib tanilgan Perri Shvartseneggerga qarshi va Perri va Braunga qarshinavbati bilan. Sifatida Xollingsvort va Perri, oxir-oqibat Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Oliy sudi, bu avvalgi holatga mos ravishda o'tkazildi presedent, a-ning rasmiy homiylari byulleten tashabbusi o'lchov yo'q edi III modda tik turib shtat buni rad etganida, federal sudning noxush qarori ustidan shikoyat qilish.^[1]

Qarorning ta'siri shu edi Kaliforniyada bir jinsli nikoh ostida qayta tiklandi tuman sudi sud qaroridan olingan boshqa xulosalar, shu jumladan sudya Von Uoker "s faktlar, nazoratni davom eting presedent kelgusida tegishli holatlar uchun. Bu ish Oliy sudga yuborilgan 570 AQSh 693 (2013) (Docket No. 12-144 ).^[2]

Fon

2008 yil may oyida Kaliforniya Oliy sudi ishda ushlangan Qayta nikoh holatlarida qarama-qarshi jinsdagi arizachilar bilan nikohni cheklovchi shtat qonunlari Kaliforniya Konstitutsiyasini buzganligi.^[3] Keyingi oy Kaliforniyada bir jinsli juftliklar turmush qurishga muvaffaq bo'lishdi.^[4] 2008 yil noyabr oyida Kaliforniya saylovchilari 8, a taklifini qabul qildilar konstitutsiyaviy o'zgartirish ilgari qarama-qarshi jins va er-xotinning nikohga bo'lgan cheklovini tiklashga qaratilgan;^[5] ammo qabul qilinganidan so'ng, turli xil davlat konstitutsiyaviy qoidalariga binoan tuzatishning haqiqiyligini shubha ostiga qo'ygan bir nechta sud ishi qo'zg'atildi,^[6] 2009 yil 26 mayda Kaliforniya Oliy sudi bo'lib o'tdi Strauss va Xorton bu (8-taklif qonuniy qaror bo'lgan bo'lsa-da), barchasi bir jinsli nikohlar taklifni qabul qilishdan oldin tuzilgan shartnomasi amal qiladi.^[7]

(The Lesbiyan huquqlari bo'yicha milliy markaz, Lambda yuridik va Amerika fuqarolik erkinliklari ittifoqi dastlab huquqini olgan edi Kaliforniyada bir jinsli nikoh, yilda Qayta nikoh holatlaridava uni himoya qildi Strauss va Xorton.)

Uch kun oldin Strauss qaror qabul qilindi Teng huquqlar uchun Amerika jamg'armasi (AFER) da'vo arizasi bilan murojaat qildi Kaliforniyaning Shimoliy okrugi uchun AQSh okrug sudi, ikkita bir jinsli juftliklar nomidan 8-taklifning haqiqiyligini shubha ostiga olish.^[8][9][10] Juftlarning yuridik guruhi rahbarlik qildi Devid Boyis va avvalgi AQSh bosh advokati Teodor Olson (tasodifan, ilgari qarama-qarshi tomonlarning vakili bo'lgan Bush va Gor, Boies vakili bilan Al Gor va Olson vakili Jorj V.Bush ), samarali qaror qilgan holat 2000 yilgi prezident saylovi.^[11] 2010 yilda Vaqt 100, ular "8-taklifga qarshi kurashda nodavlat va kuchli huquqiy yondoshganliklari" uchun ro'yxatga olingan.^[12]

Lambda yuridik va Amerika fuqarolik erkinliklari ittifoqi (ACLU) hujjatlarni topshirishga qarshi chiqishdi, chunki ular hozirgi paytda federal muammo foydadan ko'ra ko'proq zarar etkazishi mumkin.^[9] Olson va AFER ushbu dalilni rad etishdi va sud ishi muddatini himoya qilishdi.^[13]

2009 yil 2 iyuldagi sudgacha bo'lgan sud majlisidan so'ng, uchta yuridik guruh ko'chib o'tdi aralashish sudda, San-Frantsisko shahri alohida arizada bo'lgani kabi.^[14] Da'vogarlar guruhlarga yoki shaharga aralashishga ruxsat berishga qarshi chiqdilar.^[15] 19 avgustda sudya Uolker yuridik guruhlarning aralashish to'g'risidagi talablarini rad etdi, ammo shaharliklar cheklangan darajada bo'lsa ham qondirishdi.^[16] Boshqa guruhlarning sud jarayoniga aralashishga urinishlariga qaramay, ular sud ishini yuritayotgan yuridik guruhni qo'llab-quvvatlashni taklif qilishdi, OChLning Jyeyms Esseks: "Biz ularning ishi kabi muvaffaqiyatli bo'lishiga ishonch hosil qilish uchun qo'limizdan kelgan barcha ishni qilishga qiziqamiz. mumkin ".^[8]

Tomonlar

Da'vogarlar

2009 yil may oyida Alameda okrugi Klerk-registrator Patrik O'Konnel Kristin Perri va Sandra Stierga bir jinsli juftlik bo'lgani uchun nikoh litsenziyasini rad etdi.^[17] Xuddi shu sababga ko'ra Din Logan Los-Anjeles okrugi Klerk Pol Katami va Jeffri Zarrilloga nikoh litsenziyasini rad etdi.^[10] Juftliklar ikki okrug kotibi va bir nechta davlat amaldorlarini sudga berishdi: Hokim Arnold Shvartsenegger, Bosh prokuror Jerri Braun va ikki amaldor Sog'liqni saqlash boshqarmasi.^[10][18]

Bir nechta guruhlar da'vogar sifatida aralashishga harakat qilishdi, shu jumladan ushbu huquqqa oid ishlarni sudga bergan guruhlar Qayta nikoh holatlarida va Strauss va Xorton.^[19] San-Frantsisko ham ishga aralashish to'g'risida iltimosnoma kiritdi. Shahar avvalgi ishlarda "keng dalillarni va taklif qilingan topilmalarni taqdim etgan" ishlarini keltirgan qattiq nazorat omillar va faktlar raddiya uzoq vaqtdan beri da'vo qilingan nikoh kamsitishlari uchun da'vo arizalariga.^[20] Shahar prokurori Dennis Errera uning idorasi "joylashtirishga yordam berish uchun" alohida ravishda yaxshi tayyorlangan "deb aytdi geylarga qarshi kamsitish faktlarga asoslanib sudda ".^[21] Uoker faqat San-Frantsiskoga aralashishga ruxsat berdi, chunki bu 8-taklif mahalliy hokimiyatlarga ta'siri haqida gapirishi mumkin edi.^[22] Shuningdek, u Bosh prokurorga San-Frantsiskoga Proposition 8 ta'sirini tahlil qilishda yordam berishni buyurdi. Uolker "bunday kattalik va ahamiyatga ega bo'lgan masalada" kerakli tezlik va tezkorlik talab qilinishini va qo'shimcha guruhlarning aralashuvi bu ishni murakkablashtirishi va to'xtab qolishini aytdi.^[23]

Sudlanuvchilar

Bosh prokuror Jerri Braun 8-taklif buzilganligini aytib, sud jarayonini himoya qilmaslikni tanladi Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Konstitutsiyasiga o'n to'rtinchi o'zgartirish va urish kerak.^[8][25] Hokim Arnold Shvartsenegger himoyada ishtirok etishdan bosh tortdi, ammo sudlarning ishni ko'rib chiqishi va "ushbu harakatning mohiyatini tezkorlik bilan hal qilishi" maqsadga muvofiqligini aytdi, chunki "sud qarorini talab qiladigan va talab qiladigan muhim konstitutsiyaviy savollar".^[26] 2010 yil 2-noyabrda Braun edi hokim etib saylandi va Kamala Xarris bosh prokuror etib saylandi.^[27][28] Ikkalasi ham taklifni himoya qilmaslikka va'da berib platformalarda yugurishdi,^[29] va davlat o'z lavozimiga kirishganidan keyin sudda 8-taklifni himoya qilishdan bosh tortdi.

Ikki guruh, 8-taklifning rasmiy tarafdorlari, ProtectMarriage.com, o'sha paytdagi senator boshchiligida Dennis Xollingsvort va raqib guruhi Kaliforniya oilalari uchun aksiya, sudlanuvchi sifatida aralashishga intildi. Sud rasmiylarning tarafdorlari tomonidan aralashishga ruxsat berib, davlat amaldorlari tomonidan qabul qilingan bo'shliqni to'ldirdi. Sudya Kaliforniya oilalari kampaniyasining talabini rad etdi.^[18][22]

15-dekabr kuni Imperial okrugi interventsiyaning muddati o'tganiga qaramay, sudlanuvchi sifatida aralashish to'g'risida iltimosnoma kiritdi.^[30] Ularning ta'kidlashicha, kostyumda ko'rsatilgan fuqarolik idoralari, Alameda va Los-Anjeles grafliklari va shtat hukumati Taklifni faol himoya qilmayapti. Ular ishda tegishli hukumat ayblanuvchisi kerakligi haqida bahslashishda davom etishdi.^[31] 4 avgust kuni sud qarori bilan birga Von Uoker Imperial okrugining aralashuvchisi maqomini rad etdi.^[32][33]

Tuman sudining sud jarayoni

Sudgacha bo'lgan iltimosnomalar

Da'vogarlar a dastlabki buyruq sud jarayoni hal bo'lguncha Kaliforniyada bir jinsli nikohni darhol tiklagan bo'lar edi.^[34] Uoker bu harakat bo'yicha qarorni kechiktirdi va uning o'rniga "to'g'ridan-to'g'ri va tezkor ravishda mohiyatiga ko'ra harakat qilishini" aytdi.^[35]

Da'vogarlar so'ralgan kampaniyada o'zgartirishlar kiritish maqsadi va maqsadi bilan bog'liq bo'lgan ichki hujjatlar ishlab chiqilishi va kampaniya davomida siyosiy xabarlarni ishlab chiqilishi. 8-taklifning tarafdorlari, boshqa sabablar qatorida siyosiy nutqqa sovuq ta'sir ko'rsatishi sababli so'rovga qarshi chiqishdi.^[36] 1-oktabrda Uoker bu bahsni rad etdi Birinchi o'zgartirish ushbu aloqalarning barchasini himoya qildi.^[37] Himoyachilar ushbu qaror ustidan shikoyat qilishdi AQSh to'qqizinchi davri bo'yicha apellyatsiya sudi va alohida ko'chib o'tdi sud jarayonini to'xtatish tuman sudida. Himoyachilar ushbu murojaatda muvaffaqiyat qozonish ehtimoli yo'qligini aytib, Walker 23 oktyabrda qolish talabini rad etdi.^[38] Nima bo'lishidan qat'iy nazar, tarafdorlar Birinchi tuzatishni davom ettirdilar imtiyoz Uoker tomonidan ko'rib chiqilgan ushbu hujjatlar ustida xususiy ravishda.^[39] 2009 yil 11 dekabrda To'qqizinchi davra Uolkerning qarorini bekor qildi va hujjatlarning chiqarilishi "siyosiy uyushma va siyosiy ifodani shakllantirishga sovuq ta'sir ko'rsatishi mumkin" deb aytdi. Raymond C. Fisher bilan Kim McLane Wardlaw va Marsha S. Berzon.^[40][41]

Sentyabr oyida 8-taklif tarafdorlari ariza bilan murojaat qilishdi qisqacha hukm. 100 sahifadan ko'proq ish olib borgan iltimosnoma suddan 8-taklifni xafa qilmaganligi to'g'risida qaror chiqarishni so'radi AQSh konstitutsiyasi sud jarayonida faktlarni topishga hojat yo'q. Harakat buni tasdiqladi Beyker va Nelson sud tomonidan olib borilgan har qanday keyingi tekshiruvni olib qo'ydi. Muvaffaqiyatsizlikka uchragan ushbu iltimosnoma, er-xotinlarning barcha da'volari qonun sifatida amalga oshirilmaganligini ta'kidladi.^[42] 13 oktyabr kuni ikki soatlik tinglovdan so'ng, Uoker bu talabni rad etdi. Uning ta'kidlashicha, Oliy sud ta'limot 1972 yildan beri jinsiy orientatsiya va jinsdagi kamsitishlar bo'yicha o'zgarishlar yuz berdi. Tuzatishning amal qilish muddatini hal qilish, deya ta'kidladi Uolker, tinglash bo'yicha guvohlik berishni talab qildi. sud jarayoni.^[43]

Teleradioeshittirishlar va onlayn ravishda tarqatish

Perri birinchi federal sud bo'lishi kerak edi suratga olingan va San-Frantsiskodagi jamoat sudlarida jonli efirda namoyish etiladi, Pasadena, Sietl, Portlend va Bruklin tomonidan ishlab chiqilgan eksperimental yangi tizim orqali To'qqizinchi tuman apellyatsiya sudi.^[44][45] Sud jarayoni shuningdek namoyish etilgan bo'lar edi video almashish veb-sayt YouTube.^[44] Uoker sud jarayonini translyatsiya qilish rejalari to'g'risida 138 574 ta sharh olganini va 32 kishidan tashqari barchasi uni qo'llab-quvvatlaganligini ta'kidladi.^[46]

2010 yil 11 yanvarda, sud jarayonidan ikki kun oldin, sudlanuvchi-aralashuvchilar Oliy sudning odil sudloviga favqulodda hujjatlarni topshirdilar. Entoni Kennedi sudning 8-1-sonli qaroriga binoan 13 yanvarga qadar jonli efirda vaqtincha to'xtatish to'g'risidagi qaror bilan sud jarayonini teletranslyatsiyani taqiqlash,^[47] yolg'iz bilan norozi bo'lish Stiven Breyer.^[48] Ommaviy axborot vositalari koalitsiyasi, shu jumladan CNN, Fox News, Associated Press va Sud TV, favqulodda vaziyatda murojaat qildi amicus qisqacha jonli efir va kechiktirilgan efirni qo'llab-quvvatlash uchun,^[49] sud an imzosiz 5-4 qaror Xollingsvort va Perri YouTube-da translyatsiyani kechiktirish rejalari to'g'risida qaror qabul qilishdan bosh tortgan bo'lsa-da, har xil federal sud binolariga jonli efirlarni noma'lum ravishda to'sib qo'yish.^[50][51] Qarama-qarshi fikr fikr tomonidan qo'shilgan Breyer tomonidan Jon Pol Stivens, Rut Bader Ginsburg va Sonia Sotomayor ko'pchilik tomonidan tashkil etilganligini ochib beradi Jon Roberts, Antonin Skaliya, Entoni Kennedi, Klarens Tomas va Samuel Alito.^[52]

Qarorga qaramay, sud jarayoni ijtimoiy tarmoq sayti orqali misli ko'rilmagan jonli efirga chiqdi Twitter gey-qiziqish jurnalidan Advokat,^[53] The Lesbiyan huquqlari bo'yicha milliy markaz,^[54] da'vogarlar vakili bo'lgan guruhning rasmiy tasmasi (AFER),^[55] Kaliforniyada joylashgan progressiv tashkilot Jasorat kampaniyasi,^[56] va bir nechta mustaqil partiyalar, shu jumladan Kris Gaydner, LGBTga asoslangan Law Dork blogining yurituvchisi,^[57] San-Frantsiskodagi advokat Kris Stol,^[58] va boshqalar.

Kinorejissyorlar Jon Irland va Jon Ainsvort sud jarayonini qayta suratga olishdi va tarqatdilar.^[59] Loyihada ishtirok etadigan aktyorlar orasida Adrien Barbeo, Arye Gross va Tess Xarper.^[60]

Eshitish

2010 yil 11 yanvarga sud ishlarini rejalashtirishda, ish bo'yicha faktlarni to'plash uchun, Uoker ikkalasini ham hayratda qoldirdi da'vogarlar va sudlanuvchilar.^[8][16][61] Sud jarayonida bir jinsli ota-onalarning bolalarga qanday ta'sir qilishi, bir jinsli nikohlar boshqa jinsdagi nikohlarni buzishi yoki yo'qligi,^[62] geylarga nisbatan diskriminatsiya tarixi va geylarga nisbatan xurofotning ta'siri.^[63] Taniqli sud guvohlari orasida tarixchi ham bor Jorj Chonsi, psixolog Gregori M. Herek va faylasuf Daniel N. Robinson.^[63]

Sud jarayoni boshlandi ochilish bayonotlari tomonidan Teodor Olson va San-Frantsisko shahar prokurorining o'rinbosari Tereza Styuart da'vogarlar uchun.^[64] Da'vogarlar nikoh a ekanligini ko'rsatishga intildilar asosiy huquq; gey va lezbiyenlarni turmush qurish huquqidan mahrum qilish ularga va ularning farzandlariga zarar etkazishi; va ularning turmush qurishini taqiqlashda hech qanday sabab yoki ijtimoiy foyda yo'qligi.^[65] Charlz J. Kuper sudlanuvchilar uchun ochilish marosimida bayonot berib, nikoh umuman boshqa jinsdagi juftliklar bilan chegaralanganligini aytdi.^[64] So'ngra da'vogarlar gey amerikaliklar kabi o'zlarining shaxsiy tajribalari va turmush qurishni istashlari sabablari to'g'risida guvohlik berishdi.^[64][66]

Oliy sudning qaroridan so'ng Xristian yuridik jamiyati Martinesga qarshi 2010 yil 28 iyunda da'vogarlar kirib kelishdi Perri Adliya qarorini keltirdi Ginsburg Oliy sud tomonidan belgilab qo'yilganidek, jinsiy orientatsiya "identifikatsiya qilinadigan sinf" bo'lib, himoyachining jinsiy orientatsiya "xulq-atvorli" degan argumentiga qarshi.^[67] Xristian Huquqiy Jamiyati a'zolikni jinsiy orientatsiyaga asoslangan holda cheklamaydi, balki "xulq-atvori va e'tiqod xulq-atvori noto'g'ri emas ".^[68] Ginsburg bu farqni rad etdi va sud jinsiy orientatsiyaga nisbatan "maqom va xulq-atvorni ajratishdan bosh tortganini" ta'kidlab, avvalgi fikrdan o'xshashlik keltirdi: "Yarmilk kiyganlik uchun soliq yahudiylarga soliqdir".^[69]

Guvohlik

Nikoh tarixi

Da'vogarlar qo'ng'iroq qilishdi ekspert guvohi Nensi Kott, amerikalik tarixshunos olim, "Nikoh hech qachon bir butun erkak va bitta ayolning birlashishi sifatida ta'riflanmagan va din hech qachon nikoh qonuniyligiga hech qanday ta'sir ko'rsatmagan" deb guvohlik bergan.^[64] Ertasi kuni u o'zining ko'rsatmalarini davom ettirdi, bu uchta muhim nuqta atrofida bo'lib o'tdi: nikoh tarixiy jihatdan yoqimsiz guruhlarni kamsitishda "jazolash" usulida ishlatilgan, qonuniy jihatdan qanday tasdiqlangan jinsdagi rollar 20-asrda nikohda bekor qilingan va nikoh institutidagi o'zgarishlar asosan "to'kish" bilan bog'liq bo'lgan tengsizlik ", dedi u nikohni mustahkamlaydi.^[70] U "qullar ozod qilinganida, ular uylanish uchun oqar edilar. Va bu ular uchun hech qanday ahamiyatga ega emas edi" deb ta'kidlab, nikoh institutining ahamiyatini ta'kidladi.^[71]

Kott o'shanda edi so'roq qilingan Devid Tompson tomonidan bir jinsli nikohga bo'lgan shaxsiy his-tuyg'ularini so'rab, u o'zini beparvo olim emas, advokat ekanligini tasdiqladi.^[72] Himoyachining ta'kidlashicha, nikoh an'anaviy ravishda erkak va ayol o'rtasida bo'lib kelgan, chunki bu naslni davom ettirish va bolalarni tarbiyalash uchun barqaror bo'linma hisoblanadi.^[73][74]

Kamsitish

Professor Jorj Chonsi ning Yel universiteti, a ijtimoiy tarixchi kim ixtisoslashgan LGBT tarixi,^[70] avvalgi hukumat kampaniyalarida qanday qilib "geylarni xavfli jinsiy deviantlar va bolalarni zo'rlovchi jinlar deb tan olish" ga urinishlar bo'lganligi tasvirlangan.^[70] So'ngra u "Xa 8-da" aksiyasidagi targ'ibot materiallarini tahlil qilib, ular bir xil xabarda qanday o'ynashganligini ko'rsatdi.^[70] U doktor Uilyam Tamning so'zlarini tahlil qildi,^[75] Bunga Kaliforniya 8-taklifdan o'tolmaganligi sababli, boshqa davlatlar ergashishi va "Shaytonning qo'liga o'tishi" va bir jinsli nikoh qonuniylashtirilgandan so'ng, "advokatlari" da'volari kiritilgan.gey kun tartibi borligini qonuniylashtirishga "urinib ko'radi" bolalar bilan jinsiy aloqa ".^[75] Chaunsi ushbu xabarlarni ilgari u ilgari muhokama qilgan gey va lezbiyenlarni hukumatning jinnilik qilish tarixi bilan bog'ladi.^[75] Xelen Ziyo, Osiyo Amerikasi bo'yicha olim ijtimoiy va siyosiy harakatlar u ham ushbu so'zlarni tahlil qilishni so'radi, uning xuddi shu kabi Osiyo jamoatchiligi tashkilotchilari bilan uchrashishi uni "shkafga kirib, eshikni yopib qo'yishga" undaganini tushuntirdi.^[76] Devid Tompson mudofaa uchun so'nggi yigirma yil ichida gey va lezbiyenlarni asosiy qabul qilish bo'yicha erishilgan yutuqlarga e'tibor qaratib, professor Chounsini so'roq qildi.^[75] Tompson kamsitishga qarshi qonunlarni qo'llab-quvvatlashini ta'kidladi ichki hamkorlik va sitcom kabi ommaviy axborot vositalarining ko'payishi Will & Grace va 2005 yilgi film Brokeback Mountain.^[75] Tompsonning so'roq qilish liniyasi "yo'qmi" ni aniqlashga qaratilgan edi tizimli tarafkashlik lezbiyenlere va gomoseksuallarga qarshi, ularga boshqalar tomonidan siyosiy jarayonda teng huquqli fuqaro sifatida qarashlariga to'sqinlik qiladi ".^[75]

Professor Gari Segura, a siyosatshunos da Stenford universiteti, boshqa hech narsa yo'qligini aytdi ozchilik guruhlari Amerikada, shu jumladan hujjatsiz begonalar - gomoseksual erkaklar va lezbiyenlarga qaraganda cheklovli byulleten tashabbuslarining maqsadi bo'lgan.^[77] U 8-taklifni turi bo'lganlikda aybladi ijtimoiy tamg'a bu "gomoseksual va lezbiyenlarning ijtimoiy taraqqiyoti boshqa odamlar va tashkilotlar hisobiga tushgandek tuyuladi va bu tepalikni tik qiladi".^[78] So'roq ostida, himoyachi guvohi Devid Blankenxorn u gey va lezbiyen amerikaliklarga nisbatan teng inson qadr-qimmati printsipiga ishonishini va "biz bir jinsli nikohga ruxsat bergan kunimizda oldingi kunimizga qaraganda ko'proq amerikalik bo'lar edik", deb aytdi.^[66]

Gregori Xerek, professor Kaliforniya universiteti, Devis 8-taklif kabi qonunlar ko'rinishidagi "tarkibiy stigma" to'g'ridan-to'g'ri ijtimoiy isnod, ta'qib va LGBT odamlariga qarshi zo'ravonlik. Shuningdek, u dalil yo'qligini ko'rsatdi "konversion terapiya "odamning jinsiy hayotini o'zgartirishda samarali bo'lib, u" gomoseksualizm buzuqlik ekanligi to'g'risida zararli va yolg'on xabarni yuboradi ", bu to'g'ridan-to'g'ri ko'proq diskriminatsiyaga olib keladi. So'roq paytida u" jinsiy orientatsiya bu kombinatsiya jozibadorlik, o'ziga xoslik va xulq-atvor va tadqiqotchilar jinsiy orientatsiyani aniqlashda duch keladigan murakkabliklar boshqa xususiyatlarni aniqlashda duch keladiganlardan farq qilmaydi. poyga ".^[79]

San-Diego Respublika shahar hokimi Jerri Sanders bunga ishonishdan qanday o'tganini guvohlik berdi ichki sheriklik bir jinsli nikohning asosi ekanligiga ishonish uchun ideal kelishuv edi. "Meni urib yuborgan narsa, men beg'araz qarashda edim", deb tushuntirdi u.^[80] So'roq paytida u sudlanuvchilar bilan 8-taklifga ovoz berganlarning hammasi ham "mutaassiblar" emas, balki ularning ovozlari "beparvolikka asoslangan" deb hisoblagan.^[81]

Psixologik ta'sir

Aloqalar bo'yicha psixolog Anne Peplau pozitsiyani egallab, shaxslar turmush qurishdan jismoniy, psixologik va ijtimoiy manfaatlarga ega bo'lishlarini ta'kidladilar.^[75] Edmund A. Egan, San-Frantsisko bosh iqtisodchisi,^[82] rozi bo'ldi va fuqaroning sog'lig'ini yaxshilash shahar shoshilinch tibbiy yordam mablag'larini tejashga yordam berishini aytdi.^[75] U shuningdek, sifati va barqarorligini ta'kidladi bir jinsli munosabatlar heteroseksual munosabatlarga o'xshash va bir jinsli juftliklarning turmush qurishiga ruxsat berish nikoh institutiga hech qanday zarar etkazmaydi.^[75] Peplau Nikol Moss tomonidan so'roq qilingan, u Peplaudan bir jinsli va qarama-qarshi jinslar o'rtasidagi farqlar to'g'risida so'ragan, ammo Peplau hech qanday muhim farqlar yo'qligini takrorlagan.^[75] Da'vogarlar oldinga doktorni ham chaqirishdi. Ilan H. Meyer, Jinsiy orientatsiya huquqi va jamoat siyosati bo'yicha Uilyams institutining davlat siyosati bo'yicha katta ilmiy xodimi UCLA yuridik fakulteti, turmush qurish huquqidan mahrum etishning ruhiy va psixologik zararlari to'g'risida guvohlik berish. "Yosh bolalar ichki sherik bo'lishga intilmaydi, nikoh bu umumiy, ijtimoiy ma'qullangan maqsaddir", dedi u. Keyin u ta'sirini tushuntirdi ozchilikning stressi gey va lezbiyenlarga.^[83]

Ota-onalar

Bir jinsli nikohning bolalarga ta'sirini o'rganib, da'vogarlar tanishtirdilar Maykl Qo'zi, a rivojlanish psixologi da Kembrij universiteti. U 1970-yillarning oxiridan boshlab, ayniqsa, bolalarning moslashuviga e'tibor qaratadigan juda katta miqdordagi adabiyot mavjudligini ta'kidladi. gey erkaklar va lezbiyenlar tomonidan tarbiyalangan bu gey va lezbiyen ota-onalar tomonidan tarbiyalanayotgan bolalarning moslashishiga ta'sir qiluvchi omillarni juda yaxshi tushunishni ta'minlaydi. Gey va lezbiyen ota-onalar tomonidan tarbiyalangan bolalar, xuddi heteroseksual ota-onalar tomonidan tarbiyalangan bolalar singari yaxshi sozlanganligi haqida daliliy hujjatlar. Uning ta'kidlashicha, ushbu bolalarning aksariyat qismi uchun ularning ota-onalari turmush qurishlari mumkinligi sababli ularning moslashuvi yaxshilanadi. Uning so'zlariga ko'ra, rivojlanish psixologiyasi samarali ota-onaga ega bo'ladigan narsa onada ham, otada ham bir xil bo'ladi va bolalarga erkaklar fe'l-atvori, ota yoki ayolga ega bo'lish shart emas degan xulosaga kelishdi. - yaxshi moslashish uchun ota-onasi, onasi bo'lishi.^[84] Guvohlik berish shuni ko'rsatdiki, Kaliforniya bir jinsli er-xotinlarni farzandlikka olishini qo'llab-quvvatlagan va ijobiy ta'sir ko'rsatgan, shu bilan birga shtatning bir jinsli juftliklar va ota-onalarning tajribasi to'g'risida guvohlik bergan, bu esa 8-taklif tomonidan o'zgartirilmagan. Devid Blankenxorn, so'roq ostida, bir jinsli juftliklar tomonidan tarbiyalangan bolalarning turmush farovonligi, agar ular turmush qurishga ruxsat berilsa, yaxshilanadi degan fikrga kelishdi.^[66]

Iqtisodiyot

8-taklifning iqtisodiyoti bo'yicha izlanishda da'vogarlar San-Frantsisko uchun bosh iqtisodchi Edmund A. Eganni oldinga chaqirishdi. U bir jinsli nikoh shaharga yordam beradi, chunki "turmush qurganlar yolg'iz odamlarga qaraganda ko'proq boylik to'playdilar" va "turmush qurganlar o'rtacha sog'lom bo'lib, o'zini yolg'iz odamlarga qaraganda sog'lomroq tutishadi", deb guvohlik berishdi, bu shaharni favqulodda vaziyatlar to'lovlaridan qutqargan xona to'lovlari va sug'urta mablag'lari.^[83] Shuningdek, u San-Frantsiskoda bir jinsli nikoh qonuniy bo'lsa, daromadlari ko'payishi haqida guvohlik berib, 2008 yildagi 5100 ta davrga asoslanib nikoh litsenziyalari chiqarilgan.^[85] Uning hisob-kitoblariga ko'ra, San-Frantsisko shahri har yili chakana savdo va mehmonxonalar xarajatlari uchun 37,2 million dollar va savdo va mehmonxonalar uchun soliq tushumidan 2,5 million dollar yo'qotmoqda.^[86]

San-Frantsisko advokati Tereza Styuart ta'kidlagan yakuniy dalillar shaharning o'zi potentsial daromaddan mahrum bo'lganligi sababli, 8-taklif gey sayyohlar va ularning oilalarini "salqin, kulrang sevgi shahri" ga (Walker aytganidek) uylanish uchun yo'l qo'ymadi.^[73] U shuningdek, Rayan Kendall va Meyerning guvohliklari bilan shahar ruhiy salomatlikning buzilishi bilan bog'liq hodisalar va xalq sog'liqni saqlash tizimiga keyingi xarajatlar bilan yuklanganligini ta'kidladi.^[73]

Siyosiy kuch

Himoya professorni chaqirdi Kennet P. Miller dan Klaremont MakKenna kolleji LGBT odamlari kuchli siyosiy va ijtimoiy qo'llab-quvvatlash Kaliforniya ichida. U barcha yirik gazetalar, Gollivud, Silikon vodiysi va davlat siyosatchilarining aksariyati 8-taklifga qat'iy qarshi chiqdilar.^[87][88]

So'rov davomida Jorj Chonsi, mudofaa LGBT odamlari siyosiy va ijtimoiy ta'siridan bahramand bo'lishdi, jamiyat tomonidan qabul qilinishining kuchayishi kabi filmlar misolida. Brokeback Mountain. Shuningdek, Chaunsi Kaliforniyadagi ish beruvchilarga jinsiy orientatsiya bo'yicha kamsitish taqiqlanganligini tan oldi.^[89] Ushbu guvohliklarga asoslanib, himoyachilar gomoseksuallar sud himoyasiga muhtoj bo'lgan maxsus mazlum ozchiliklar toifasiga kira olmasliklarini ta'kidlashdi.

Tuman sudining xulosasi

Sudya Uoker 2010 yil 16 iyun kuni yakuniy so'zlarni eshitdi.^[91]

2010 yil 4-avgustda Uoker da'vogarlar foydasiga qarorini e'lon qildi va 8-sonli taklifni bekor qildi. Tegishli jarayon va Teng himoya Ning qoidalari O'n to'rtinchi o'zgartirish uchun AQSh konstitutsiyasi.^[92] Uoker Kaliforniyada yo'q degan xulosaga keldi oqilona asos yoki gey va lezbiyenlarning nikoh litsenziyalarini rad etishdan manfaatdor:^[93]

An tashabbus Saylovchilar tomonidan qabul qilingan tadbir katta hurmatga loyiqdir. Hatto eng yuqori malakali olimlar va ekspertlarning ko'rib chiqilgan qarashlari va fikrlari saylovchilarning qarorlaridan kamdan-kam ustun turadi. Biroq, e'tiroz bildirilganda, saylovchilarning qarorlari hech bo'lmaganda dalillarda qo'llab-quvvatlanishi kerak. Bu, ayniqsa, ushbu qarorlar shaxslarning qonuniy tasnifiga kirganda qo'llaniladi. Gumon, taxmin va qo'rquv etarli emas. Fuqarolarning bir guruhi yoki toifasining axloqiy buzilishi etarli emas, aksariyat ushbu fikrga qo'shilishidan qat'iy nazar. Dalillar jiddiy hisob-kitoblardan tashqari 8-taklif faqat shu kabi norozilikda qo'llab-quvvatlanishini ko'rsatdi. Shunday qilib, 8-taklif saylovchilar yoki ularning vakillarining konstitutsiyaviy imkoniyatlaridan tashqarida.

Shuningdek, u 8-taklifning qarama-qarshi jinsdagi nikoh to'g'risidagi an'anaviy tushunchalar va gomoseksualizmni axloqiy jihatdan rad etishiga asoslanganligini, ularning ikkalasi ham diskriminatsiya uchun qonuniy asos emasligini ta'kidladi. U gey va lezbiyenlarning aynan mana shu ozchilikning turi ekanligini ta'kidladi qattiq nazorat himoya qilish uchun mo'ljallangan edi.

Haqiqat topilmalari

Fikrning 50 dan ortiq sahifasi Walkersning 80 ta xulosasini hujjatlashtirishga bag'ishlangan faktlar^[94] sud majlisida tinglangan tegishli ko'rsatuvlar va dalillar. Misollar kiritilgan -

• Nikoh a fuqarolik, diniy emas.^{[95]:FOF 19 p.60}
• Davlat fuqarolik nikohini qanday belgilaydi.^{[95]:FOF 34, 67-bet}
• Jinsiy orientatsiya - bu erkaklar, ayollar yoki har ikkala jinsdagi jinsiy, mehrli yoki romantik istaklarning va jozibadorlikning doimiy modelini anglatadi. Shaxsning jinsiy orientatsiyasi o'zini o'zi aniqlash, o'zini tutish yoki o'ziga jalb qilish orqali ifodalanishi mumkin.^{[95]:FOF 43, s.71-72}
• Shaxslar odatda o'zlarining jinsiy yo'nalishini tanlamaydilar. Shaxs ongli qaror bilan, terapevtik aralashuv yoki boshqa usul, jinsiy yo'nalishni o'zgartirishi.^{[95]:FOF 46, s.74}
• Shtat gey va lezbiyenlardan o'z yo'nalishini o'zgartirishni yoki Kaliforniyadagi gey va lezbiyenlarning sonini kamaytirishni so'rashdan manfaatdor emas.^{[95]:FOF 47, 76-bet}
• Nikohning davlat va shaxslar tomonidan oladigan foydalari bor, ular bir xil va qarama-qarshi jinsdagi nikohga taalluqlidir.^{[95]:FOF 35-41, s.67-71}
• Xuddi shu jinsiy juftliklar muvaffaqiyatli nikoh va birlashishga tegishli xususiyatlar jihatidan qarama-qarshi jinsdagi juftliklar bilan bir xildir.^{[95]:FOF 48, s.79}
• Qarama-qarshi jinsdagi odamga uylanish - geylar va lezbiyanlar uchun haqiqiy bo'lmagan variant.^{[95]:FOF 51, s.79}
• Uydagi sheriklik nikoh bilan bog'liq ijtimoiy ma'noga ega emas.^{[95]:FOF 52, p.80}
• O'sha paytda taqqoslanadigan asoslarga ko'ra ziddiyatli bo'lgan boshqa guruhlarning nikohi, masalan, irq yoki millat, turmushning "jo'shqinligi" yoki ijtimoiy institut sifatida ahamiyatini pasaytirmadi, garchi ko'p odamlar o'sha paytda uning tanazzuliga tushib qolish xavotirlarini bildirishgan.^{[95]:FOF 66-67, p.66}
• Bir jinsli juftliklar bilan nikohni rad etish natijasida kelib chiqadigan xarajatlar va zararlar (davlatga va lezbiyenlarga va geylarga).^{[95]:FOF 64-68, s.77-78}
• Ota-onaning jinsi bolaning moslashishiga ta'sir qilmaydi. Shaxsning jinsiy orientatsiyasi, u yaxshi ota-ona bo'lishi mumkinligini aniqlamaydi. Gey yoki lesbiyan ota-onalar tomonidan tarbiyalangan bolalar, heteroseksual ota-onalar tomonidan tarbiyalangan bolalar singari, sog'lom, muvaffaqiyatli va yaxshi moslashishga ega.^{[95]:FOF 70, p.95}
• Gey va lezbiyenlarni asrab olish keng tarqalgan bo'lib, Kaliforniya qonunchiligida qo'llab-quvvatlanadi va rag'batlantirilib, bir xil jinsiy juftliklar va ota-onalarga tegishli dalillarni taqdim etadi, shu bilan Kaliforniyadagi bir xil jinsiy juftliklarning 18% bolalarni tarbiyalaydi.^{[95]:FOF 69-73, s.94-96} Xulosa sifatida, bu 8-taklif ota-onani tarbiyalashni takomillashtirish bilan oqilona bog'liq emasligini isbotlaydi, chunki u nikohda bo'lmagan bir xil jinsiy juftliklar tomonidan ota-onalarning biron bir jihati davlat tomonidan tasdiqlanishini o'zgartirish yoki bekor qilishga urinmaydi.^{[95]:Pp.Int. 3 s.127–128}
• Geylar va lezbiyenlar kamsitilish qurbonlari bo'lish tarixiga ega.^{[95]:FOF 74, s.96}
• Gey va lezbiyanlarning munosabatlari gunohkor yoki geteroseksual munosabatlardan kam degan diniy e'tiqod gey va lezbiyenlarga zarar etkazadi.^{[95]:FOF 77, p.101}

Moddiy jarayon

Sudya Uolker ushbu huquqni "turmush qurish huquqi" deb ta'riflagan, u yozishicha, u "tarixiy ravishda bo'lgan va turmush o'rtog'ini tanlash huquqi bo'lib qoladi va o'zaro kelishuv asosida birlashib, uy xo'jaligi tuzadi". Sevgi Virjiniyaga qarshi va Grisvold va Konnektikut. U so'zlarini davom ettirib, "irq va jinslar tengsizligi davrida nikohni shakllantirganlik va gender cheklovlari, ammo bunday cheklovlar hech qachon nikoh institutining tarixiy yadrosiga kirmagan".

Ning amaldagi darajasi bo'yicha 8-taklifni tahlil qilishdan oldin ko'rib chiqish (asosiy huquqlarni qat'iy tekshirish), Uolker Kaliforniyaning ichki sheriklik to'g'risidagi qonunlari Kaliforniyaning gey va lezbiyenlarga turmushga chiqish huquqini ikki sababga ko'ra berish majburiyatini qondirmasligini ta'kidladi: (1) ichki sheriklik nikoh bilan bir xil ijtimoiy ma'no bermaydi; va (2) ichki sheriklik "xususan, Kaliforniya bir jinsli juftliklarga huquq va imtiyozlarni taqdim etishi va shu bilan bir jinsli juftliklardan nikohni aniq ushlab turishi uchun" yaratilgan.

Sudya Uolker 8-taklifni konstitutsiyaga zid deb topdi, chunki u hatto a ham o'tmaydi ratsional asoslarni ko'rib chiqish (u Teng himoya sharoitida tushuntirganidek), juda kam qattiq nazorat.

Guvohlarning ishonchliligi

The ekspert guvohlari da'vogarlar tomonidan taqdim etilgan "aniqlangan mavzular bo'yicha fikr guvohlik berish uchun to'liq malakali" va "aniqlangan mavzular bo'yicha ishonchli fikr guvohlik bergan" deb baholandi.^[93] Himoya taklif qilingan ekspertlar sifatida faqat ikkita guvoh, ikkalasi ham sifatsiz deb baholandi, ular sud majlis sudyasiga qaramay (so'roq ostida berilgan savollarga "javob berolmagan yoki javob berolmagan") amalda yolvorishmoqda [ging] Adv 8 advokatlari o'zlarining ishlarida yaxshiroq ishlashlari va ko'proq ishonchli dalillarni keltirishi uchun ":^[96] Guvohlik berishga ruxsat berilgan Devid Blankenxornni oxir-oqibat "fikr bildiruvchi ma'lumot berish qobiliyati yo'q" deb baholashdi.^[93] Sud Kennet P. Millerning "gey va lezbiyenlarning siyosiy hokimiyati haqidagi fikrlari unchalik katta bo'lmagan vaznga ega va faqat ular ishonchli dalillar bilan mustahkamlangan darajada."^[93] 2012 yilda Blankenxorn fikrini o'zgartirib, endi bir jinsli nikohni qabul qilganini aytdi.^[97]

Qarorning huquqiy tahlili

Professor Dag NeJayme of Loyola yuridik fakulteti sudya Uokerning qarori sud qarorida adolat Kennedi tomonidan qo'llanilgan standartga o'xshash tarzda ishlab chiqilganligini ta'kidladi Lourens va Texasga qarshi Va Uolker Kennedi bilan "gaplashayotgan" degan fikrni ilgari surdi, u odatda Oliy sudda ovoz berib ovoz beradi.^[98] John C. Eastman, 8-taklifni qo'llab-quvvatlagan yuridik professor, professor NeJaymening bahosi bilan rozi bo'ldi. Barri McDonald, a konstitutsiyaviy qonun professor Pepperdin universiteti, Uokerning ishni qat'iy ko'rib chiqishi va dalillarni sinchkovlik bilan to'plashi "apellyatsiya sudlari uchun ushbu sud qarorini bekor qilishni qiyinlashtiradi" deb ishongan.^[99]

"Faqat a dastlabki sud [Walker singari] aniq xulosalar chiqarishi mumkin ", - dedi advokat Brayan DeVine tahlilda. U qo'shimcha ravishda" Apellyatsiya sudi katta e'zoz bering birinchi instansiya sudining aniq xulosalariga "va Walkerni" ishning faktlarini sinchkovlik bilan va sinchkovlik bilan ko'rib chiqayotgani, Apellyatsiya sudi va Oliy sudi uchun batafsil va ishonarli yozuvlar yaratgani uchun "maqtagan.^[100] Endryu Koen, CBS Huquqiy tahlilchi, mudofaa guruhining "sud jarayonida o'z raqiblariga shuncha asos berish" to'g'risidagi qarorini shubha ostiga qo'ydi va konservativ Oliy sud "kunni saqlab qolish" uchun ularning qimor o'yinlarini "aqlga sig'maydigan" deb atadi. U sudya Uokerning ishni ko'rib chiqishini, ayniqsa sudlanuvchi-aralashuvchilarga nisbatan yuqori baho berdi. "Sud jarayonida Uolker amalda advokatlardan iltimos qildi va ularni qo'llab-quvvatlashi uchun advokatlarga murojaat qildi. U ularga murojaat qilish uchun yozma savollar berdi. So'nggi dalillarda ularga ko'proq ishonarli dalillar berish uchun ularni tanbeh berdi. Ular shunchaki qilmadilar yoki qila olmadilar. javob bermadi yoki javob bermadi. "^[96] Lea Brilmayer Yel huquqshunoslik professori, sud majlisining dalillari va qarori "[Prop 8] tarafdorlarining afsuslangan advokatlari" natijasida kelib chiqqan deb taxmin qildi.^[101] Vikram Amar, UC Devis huquqshunos professori, sudlanuvchining ishni qo'zg'atmaslik to'g'risidagi qarori uzoq vaqt davomida yuqori sudlarda dalillarning ahamiyatsizligi haqida bahslashib, ularga yordam berishi mumkin deb ta'kidladi: Uolker aql-idrok asoslari dalillar bilan qo'llab-quvvatlanadimi, ammo qodir Buning o'rniga, geylarning nikohi salbiy ta'sir ko'rsatishi mumkinligiga ishongan saylovchilar o'zlarining e'tiqodlarini har qanday dalillarga befarq qarashlari bilan qarashga haqli deb hisoblashdi.^[102]

Yuridik firma Ozodlik bo'yicha maslahat, 2004 yildan beri Kaliforniyada bir jinsli nikohga qarshi bo'lgan sudga qarshi chiqqan, tanqid qilindi Ittifoq mudofaasi jamg'armasi ishni ko'rib chiqish. "ADF 8-taklifga e'tiroz bildirganlar tomonidan taqdim etilgan 15 ta guvohdan keyin sud jarayonida faqat ikkita guvohni taqdim etdi. Hatto sudya Uolker ham 8-Prop nomidan ADF tomonidan taqdim etilgan dalillarning etishmasligidan xavotirda ekanligini aytdi."^[103]

Ed Uilan, konservativ prezident Axloq va jamoat siyosati markazi va sobiq advokat Jorj V.Bush ma'muriyati, sud qarorini hozirgi jamiyatning sub'ektiv va asossiz qarashlariga asoslangan deb tanqid qildi xulq-atvor neytral emas qonunlarning talqini. Uilan, xususan, sudya Uolkerning jamiyat haqidagi ba'zi faktlar "shubhasiz" yoki "munozaradan tashqari" ekanligi haqidagi takroran da'vosini tanqid qildi, masalan, Uolkerning bir jinsli ota-onalar qarama-qarshi jinsdagi ota-onalar singari bir xil darajada samarali ekanligi yoki bir xil narsalarga yo'l qo'yganligi haqidagi e'tirozlari. -jinsiy turmush qurganlar bir xil jinsdagi nikoh muxoliflarining huquqlariga hech qanday salbiy ta'sir ko'rsatmaydi. Uilan bu fikrlar aslida qizg'in bahsli deb hisoblaydi.^[104]

Hukmga munosabat

Qarorni qo'llab-quvvatlovchi mitinglar mamlakatning yirik shaharlarida rejalashtirilgan edi.^[105]

Kaliforniyaning saylangan rasmiylari ham qarorga ijobiy javob berishdi. Hokim Shvartsenegger ishda ayblanuvchi sifatida ko'rsatilgan, "kunlik hayotini boshqarayotgan gey va lezbiyan oilalaridagi yuz minglab Kaliforniyaliklar uchun bu qaror to'la huquqiy himoya va kafolatlar bilan tasdiqlangan deb o'ylayman. . "^[90] U sud jarayonida Uokerning xatti-harakatlariga iltifot ko'rsatib, uning "masalaning ikkala tomonini ham birdek hurmat qilish" harakatlarini tabrikladi.^[106] Bosh prokuror jigarrang, shuningdek sudlanuvchi, qarorni maqtab, uni "Kaliforniya uchun ajoyib yangilik" deb atadi. San-Frantsisko, Los-Anjeles va San-Diego merlari - Gavin Newsom, Antonio Villaraigosa va Jerri Sanders navbati bilan - sud qarorini ham maqtagan.^[107] Kaliforniya shtatining ikkala senatori, Barbara bokschi va Dianne Faynshteyn, teng huquqni ilgari surish sifatida qarorni tasdiqladi.^[108]

Several Hollywood celebrities reacted positively to the decision. Ellen DeJeneres jubilantly tvit yozdi "This just in: Equality won!" Parij Xilton also chimed in by tweeting, "What a huge historical day for equal rights in this country! They finally overturned Prop 8! There shouldn't be a law on true love. :)"^[109] ledi Gaga tweeted that the decision inspired her to write songs.^[110] Adam Lambert responded to the ruling by saying "I'm glad California has restored the right for all of its citizens to marry whomever they choose."^[110] Reaksiya ijtimoiy tarmoq saytlari like Twitter was overwhelmingly positive, with the terms "overturned" and "prop. 8" becoming trending topics immediately following the decision.^[111]

Oxirgi kun avliyolari Iso Masihning cherkovi commented: "this decision represents only the opening of a vigorous debate over the rights of the people to define and protect this most fundamental institution – marriage ..." The Rim katolik yepiskoplari of California stated: "... the courts do not have the right to distort the meaning of marriage".^[112] Nikoh uchun milliy tashkilot (NOM) chairman Maggie Gallagher also disagreed with the ruling. She targeted the judge's sexuality and accused Walker of "substituting his views for those of the American people and of our Founding Fathers who I promise you would be shocked by courts that imagine they have the right to put gay marriage in our Constitution". Brayan Braun, president of NOM, complained of the "biased way [Walker] conducted the trial."^[113] Some critics have characterized the ruling as sud faolligi.^{[114][115][116]} The Amerika Oila Assotsiatsiyasi called for Walker's impichment.^[117]

Appeals by proponents and intervenors

The State of California did not appeal the decision. However, the defendant-intervenors (including the official proponents of Proposition 8) did challenge it.

(Subsequent to the appeal ruling, the Supreme Court eventually determined that in line with many other past cases, these parties lacked III modda standing under the U.S. Constitution's Ish yoki tortishuvlar bandi, and therefore while the Courts of Appeal did in fact rule (and had affirmed the District Court decision), their ruling was subsequently withdrawn (vacated) in 2013 by direction of the Supreme Court, on the grounds that under Federal law they erred and should have dismissed the appeal.)

Apellyatsiya sudi

On August 4, 2010, the defendant-intervenors filed a notice of appeal to the To'qqizinchi davr.^[118] Imperial County, which was denied the right to intervene as a defendant, appealed that denial and Walker's decision. In January 2011, the Ninth Circuit ishdan bo'shatilgan the Imperial County appeal for lack of tik turib.^[119][120] Walker cast doubt on whether the defendant-intervenors had legal standing to appeal.^[121] If they lack standing, only the named defendants could appeal, and the principal named defendants, Governor Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Brown, refused to participate in the defense.^[122] A Kaliforniya apellyatsiya sudi dismissed an emergency request by the Tinch okeani Adliya instituti, a conservative legal organization, to kuch Schwarzenegger and Brown to defend the case on appeal without a eshitish, followed by the California Supreme Court on September 8, 2010, who denied without explanation.^[123]

On August 12, 2010, the defendant-intervenors filed an "emergency motion" in the Ninth Circuit for a ijro etilish muddati pending appeal.^[124] The stay motion was heard by a 3-judge panel in the Ninth Circuit made up of Edvard Livi, Maykl Deyli Xokkins va Sidni Tomas. On August 16, 2010, the Ninth Circuit unanimously granted the motion to stay, ordered expedited briefing on the merits of the appeal, and directed the partiyalar to brief the issue of why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of standing.^[125][126] On August 17, 2010, the same Ninth Circuit panel ordered expedited briefing on the Imperial County appeal.^[127] The court also ordered both appeals calendared for og'zaki bahs during the week of December 6, 2010, in San Francisco.

Media-ni ijro etish

Recording of the first hour of oral arguments that discussed the issue of standing.

The merits were heard by a different three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit consisting of Stiven Raynxardt, Hawkins, and N. Rendi Smit.^[128] Reinhardt, the most senior of the three judges, is considered a solid liberal.^[129] Hawkins a Klinton appointee, and Smith was tayinlangan by George W. Bush.^[129] Ervin Chemerinskiy, who filed a qisqacha in support of Walker's ruling, characterized the panel as "ideologically diverse".^[129] On December 1, 2010, Proposition 8 proponents filed a motion to disqualify Reinhardt from hearing the case because his wife, Ramona Ripston, is the executive director of the ACLU of Southern California and thus put his impartiality into question.^[130] Reinhardt denied the motion the next day.^[131][132] On December 6, 2010, the judges heard oral arguments, which were also televised and made available on C-SPAN.^[133]

Media-ni ijro etish

The second hour of oral arguments addressed the constitutionality of Proposition 8.

On January 4, 2011, in the appeal by the defendant-intervenors, the Ninth Circuit certified a question uchun Kaliforniya Oliy sudi. Because California officials had declined to defend the law, the federal court asked the state court to decide whether the backers of a challenged initiative had "a particularized interest in the initiative's validity or the authority to assert the State's interest in the initiative's validity" that would permit them to defend the law when state officials refuse to do so.^[134][135] The Ninth Circuit stayed the appeal pending a response from the California Supreme Court.^[134] The California Supreme Court heard oral argument on the certified question on September 6, 2011,^[136] and on November 17 ruled that the non-governmental proponents of Proposition 8 have the legal standing to defend it.^[137][138] Bosh sudya Tani Kantil-Sakauye wrote in a unanimous opinion, "[I]n the past official proponents of initiative measures in California have uniformly been permitted to participate ... in numerous lawsuits in California courts challenging the validity of the initiative measure the proponents sponsored" and a qarama-qarshi fikr was written by Justice Joys L. Kennard.^[139]

Qaror

On February 7, 2012, the three-judge panel hukmronlik qildi 2–1 in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional.^{[140][141][142]} Reinhardt authored the majority opinion and Judge Smith filed a dissent on the constitutional issue while concurring that the defendant-intervenors had the standing to appeal and that Judge Walker's ruling should not be denied.^[143] In describing the issue before the court, Reinhardt said the usage of the word "marriage" was what was at stake, not any substantive legal rights: "Because under California statutory law, same-sex couples had all the rights of opposite-sex couples, regardless of their marital status, all parties agree that Proposition 8 had one effect only. It stripped same-sex couples of the ability they previously possessed to obtain from the State, or any other authorized party, an important right—the right to obtain and use the designation of 'marriage' to describe their relationships. Nothing more, nothing less."

The decision was made on narrow grounds, although Reinhardt wrote that "were we unable ... to resolve the matter on the basis we do, we would not hesitate to proceed to the broader question - the constitutionality of denying same-sex couples the right to marry",^[140] and that in their decision the only facts that mattered are in fact adjudicative facts capable of being proper findings, about the parties and their actions and motives, and facts conceded by the defendants, and therefore the standard of review became irrelevant in the appeal.^{[140]:32–33}

The majority opinion states that "Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples," and citing Romer va Evans, bu "Konstitutsiya simply does not allow for 'laws of this sort'."^[140][141] It also states that the court did not need to consider Walker's reasons for holding Proposition 8 unconstitutional (that "it deprives same-sex couples of the fundamental right to marry" and violates the Equal Protection Clause by excluding same-sex couples from an "honored status" permitted different-sex couples) since the matter could be decided on narrower grounds: "Proposition 8 singles out same-sex couples for unequal treatment by taking away from them alone the right to marry", a "distinct constitutional violation" in that it subjected a minority group to "the deprivation of an existing right without a legitimate reason." ^[140] The opinion call this "the narrowest ground" for considering the case.

Reinhardt then asked if "the People of California have legitimate reasons for ... tak[ing] away from same-sex couples the right to have their lifelong partnerships dignified by the official status of 'marriage'." Finding a close parallel concerning the removal of an existing right from a minority group without legitimate reason in the case of Romer va Evans 634-635 (1996), in that it was based on the narrowest ground upon which the matter could be decided,^{[140]:33–34} he rejected each of the reasons offered as justifications for Proposition 8. First, it had no effect on child-rearing since it made no change to laws governing parenting and adoption by either gender. Second, it would not affect the procreative behavior of opposite-sex couples. Similarly, it could not reflect a reasonable attempt to "proceed with caution" in altering social institutions because more than 18,000 same-sex couples had already married and because its intention was to create an absolute barrier embedded within the constitution (rather than a cautious restriction). Voters were told instead that the proposition would "eliminate" the right of same-sex couples to marry. The law had just one effect, namely to strip a disfavored minority of an "extraordinarily significan[t]" official designation - the name that society gives to the relationship that matters most between two adults.^{[140]:37–42} Stating that in law, the willful creation of a new legal status quo and withdrawal of the right to a designation with significant social consequences is very different from a mere declining to extend that designation to a group in the first place,^{[140]:41–42} he concluded that the "inevitable inference" was that Proposition 8's rationale was "disapproval of gays and lesbians as a class", and agreed with its unconstitutionality: "[T]he People of California may not, consistent with the Federal Constitution, add to their state constitution a provision that has no more practical effect than to strip gays and lesbians of their right to use the official designation that the State and society give to committed relationships, thereby adversely affecting the status and dignity of the members of a disfavored class." ^[140][144]

Reinhardt's majority opinion is grounded in details specific to the case of California and supported by a narrow Constitutional principle.^[141][145] This narrowing was widely discussed and analyzed following the decision, with many legal commentators suggesting that the narrower decision made it more likely to either be upheld by, or denied sertifikat by, the Supreme Court. Uilyam Eskrij, writing at the Stenford qonuni sharhi, described the courts as being "unable, and usually unwilling, to strongly challenge entrenched inequalities", and went on to suggest that while California may be ready to embrace same-sex marriage, the country is not, and as a result, the Supreme Court would be "wise to deny review ... or to go along with Judge Reinhardt's narrow ruling."^[146] Jane S. Schacter, writing at the Garvard qonuni sharhi, framed the opinion in terms of an incremental, federalist approach to securing LGBT rights. Schacter and many other commentators also suggested that Reinhardt's decision may be deliberately directed at Justice Entoni Kennedi, who is widely regarded as a bemalol ovoz berish in any Supreme Court decision on the case.^[147][148]

On February 21, 2012, Proposition 8 supporters requested an en banc review by the Ninth Circuit.^[149] On June 5, 2012, the request was denied; at least four of the twenty-nine judges voted to rehear the case.^[150][151] The ruling was temporarily qoldi to allow an appeal to the AQSh Oliy sudi.^[152]

AQSh Oliy sudi

A demonstration in front of the Supreme Court on the day of oral arguments

Proponents of Proposition 8 appealed the case (captioned Xollingsvort va Perri) to the U.S. Supreme Court on July 31, 2012.^[153] On August 24, opponents of Proposition 8 asked the Supreme Court not to hear the case. Olson said, "It was with strong mixed emotions ... But in the end, we represent real, live people, and if the court doesn't take the case, we've won and our clients and thousands of others in California can get married."^[154]

Oliy sud buni qondirdi sertifikat in the case on December 7, 2012, ordering the parties to brief and argue the additional question of whether supporters of Prop. 8 have tik turib, i.e., a legal right to be involved in the case, under III modda, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.^[155] Olson and Boies stated that they would "address all the issues, focused on the fundamental constitutional right to marry of all citizens" before the Supreme Court, while defenders of Proposition 8 stated they would now have their first chance at a fair trial since they began defending Proposition 8.^[156] The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on March 26, 2013.^[157][158] Qo'shma Shtatlar uchun, Donald B. Verrilli, kichik edi amicus curiae supporting the respondents.^[159]

	Og'zaki bahslar Recording of oral arguments before the Supreme Court.
Ushbu faylni o'ynatishda muammo bormi? Qarang ommaviy axborot vositalarida yordam.

On June 26, 2013, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court declined to revisit the Ninth Circuit's decision on the grounds that the backers of Proposition 8 had lacked standing to appeal^{[160][161][162][163][164][165]} and that "Petitioners' arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive".^[166] For the same reasons, the Court ruled that the Proposition 8 proponents lacked standing at the Court of Appeals level. Therefore, the case was returned to the Ninth Circuit with instructions to vacate its former ruling (affirming the district court's overturning of Proposition 8). The majority opinion was authored by Chief Justice Roberts and was joined by Justices Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan. Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and Sotomayor dissented. The Court's action left the original district court ruling (overturning Proposition 8) as the final ruling in the case. It also meant that the Supreme Court did not discuss the underlying merits of the case and the case did not result in a formal precedent for states other than California (although Obergefell va Xodjes would later result in a national precedent).^[167]

Qaror tafsilotlari

The Supreme Court decided the case on the basis of lack of standing (see Case or Controversy Clause: Interpretation ):

[A]ny person invoking the power of a federal court must demonstrate standing to do so. In other words, the litigant must seek a remedy for a personal and tangible harm. Although most standing cases consider whether a plaintiff has satisfied the requirement when filing suit, Article III demands that an "actual controversy" persist throughout all stages of litigation ... Standing "must be met by persons seeking appellate review, just as it must be met by persons appearing in courts of first instance."... The parties do not contest that respondents had standing to initiate this case against the California officials responsible for enforcing Proposition 8. But once the District Court issued its order, respondents no longer had any injury to redress, and the state officials chose not to appeal. The only individuals who sought to appeal were petitioners, who had intervened in the District Court, but they had not been ordered to do or refrain from doing anything. Their only interest was to vindicate the constitutional validity of a generally applicable California law. As this Court has repeatedly held, such a "generalized grievance"—no matter how sincere—is insufficient to confer standing.

The ruling also drew upon a "lengthy pedigree" of similar rulings on the same point of law, such as Lujan va yovvoyi tabiat himoyachilari^[168] ("[A litigant] raising only a generally available grievance about government—claiming only harm to his and every citizen's interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large—does not state an Article III case or controversy."), Allen va Rayt^[169] ("an asserted right to have the Government act in accordance with law is not sufficient, standing alone, to confer jurisdiction on a federal court"), Diamond v. Charles^[170] (Article III standing "is not to be placed in the hands of 'concerned bystanders,' who will use it simply as a 'vehicle for the vindication of value interests.'"), Arizonaliklar rasmiy ingliz tiliga^[171] ("Nor has this Court ever identified initiative proponents as Article-III-qualified defenders of the measures they advocated."), Karcher va May^[172] (Citizens who had standing in their 'public official' roles did not retain standing once they left public office), and other cases unanimous on the point. The ruling summed up that Californian law provides a "right of proponents to defend their initiatives in California courts where Article III does not apply", but standing in federal court is based upon federal, not state, law; the same reasoning also invalidated the previous hearing by the Ninth Circuit.

Eric Segall, a professor of law at Jorjiya davlat universiteti, commented on the ruling:

[T]he interests of the people who proposed Proposition 8 are no different than the interests of any other citizen who believes that the constitutional amendment is valid. Allowing such a person (with no unique injury) to appeal an adverse federal court decision is roughly the same as saying any plaintiff can sue a state in federal court if he or she thinks a state law is invalid and is angry about it. And that is simply not allowed. So, the people who appealed the Proposition 8 case had no interest in the case beyond their [personal] wish to see the amendment upheld and thus did not suffer the requisite personal injury to satisfy the 'cases' or 'controversies' requirements of Article III.^[173]

Turli xil

adolat Entoni Kennedi in his dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Alito, Thomas and Sotomayor, expressed concern about the implications of the Supreme Court ruling, noting that voter initiatives existed precisely for when voters felt the State was insufficiently responsive to their concerns or as a way for odamlar to assert their rights, and that elected officials should not have the ability to nullify such laws simply by choosing not to defend them. Kennedy wrote: "In the end, what the Court fails to grasp or accept is the basic premise of the initiative process. And it is this. The essence of democracy is that the right to make law rests in the people and flows to the government, not the other way around. Freedom resides first in the people without need of a grant from government."^[1]

Constitutional law scholar and law school dean Ervin Chemerinskiy suggested that, in the future, the state should be required to appoint a special attorney in the event that the state declines to undertake a defense, in order that a hearing on the law's constitutionality would not be dismissed before the merits had been considered.^[174][175]

Natijada

Plaintiffs Perry (left) and Stier at the 2013 San-Frantsiskodagi g'urur paradi shortly after their marriage at San-Fransisko shahar meriyasi

Following the Supreme Court decision, on June 28, 2013, the same Ninth Circuit panel dissolved its stay of the district court's order, allowing same-sex marriages to proceed in California.^[176] The same day, Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier, plaintiffs in the case, married with California Attorney General Kamala Xarris officiating at the ceremony.^[177]

Two legal challenges to the implementation of the ruling followed, both dismissed by the courts:

• The day after the Ninth Circuit dissolved its stay, proponents of Proposition 8 filed an emergency application asking the Supreme Court to enforce the usual 25-day period in which the losing party may make a petition for rehearing;^[178] O'chirish adolat Kennedy, overseeing the Ninth Circuit, denied the request on June 30, 2013.
• Proposition 8 supporters also sought a discretionary Writ of Mandate before the Supreme Court of California on July 12, 2013, to ask the court to stay, and then override, the statewide application of the court's ruling, contending it was not a sinf harakati and applied only to the counties and specific individuals named in the suit. Their argument was rejected by Kaliforniya gubernatori, who on legal advice^[179] "ordered" the change to license issue,^[180] Kaliforniya Bosh prokurori Kamala Xarris, who noted that "state officials are obligated to govern marriage equally in all counties and that Walker's ruling specifically covers those officials",^[181] San-Fransisko 's city attorney who stated that it was "the most basic concepts of American law ... that a state court will not overrule the federal judiciary",^[179] and by 24 defendant Okrug xizmatchilari who through their lawyer stated that their role was ultimately state supervised and it would be unfeasible to have a "patchwork" of different marriage criteria varying between the counties of a single state.^[182] On July 15, the court unanimously declined the request for immediate action and requested arguments from the parties,^[183][184] and on August 14, in a one-sentence order, unanimously refused to take up the petition.^{[185][186][187][188][189]}

Related motions

Media-ni ijro etish

Recording of appeal to vacate Walker's decision.

Judge Walker retired in February 2011 and on April 6 told reporters that he is gay and has been in a relationship with a male doctor for about ten years.^[190] On April 25, supporters of Proposition 8 filed a motion in district court to vacate Walker's decision. They argued he should have recused himself or disclosed his relationship status, and unless he "disavowed any interest in marrying his partner", he had "a direct personal interest in the outcome of the case".^[191] District Court Chief Judge Jeyms Uar heard arguments on the motion on June 13 and denied it the next day. Ware wrote in the decision, "Requiring rad etish because a court issued an buyruq that could provide some speculative future benefit to the presiding judge solely on the basis of the fact that the judge belongs to the class against whom the unconstitutional law was directed would lead to a Section 455(b)(4) standard that required recusal of minority judges in most, if not all, civil rights cases. Congress could not have intended such an unworkable recusal statute."^[192][193] Supporters of Proposition 8 appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit. On November 21, 2011, the court consolidated this appeal with the merits appeal.^[194] The apellyatsiya sudi in its February 7, 2012, decision found no evidence of bias on Walker's part and rejected arguments that he recuse himself.^[140][195]

Media-ni ijro etish

Recording of appeal to keep videotapes sealed.

On September 19, 2011, Ware ordered the release of the trial videotapes to the public, which the defender-intervenors had sought to keep under seal.^[196] The Ninth Circuit stayed the release of the videos pending appeal,^[197] and heard oral arguments on the appeal on December 8, 2011.^[198] On February 2, 2012, the court decided that the videos should remain sealed. Writing for the panel, Reinhardt wrote: "The trial judge on several occasions unequivocally promised that the recording of the trial would be used only in chambers and not publicly broadcast. ... To revoke Chief Judge Walker's assurances after proponents had reasonably relied on them would cause serious damage to the integrity of the sud jarayoni."^[199]

In April 2017, a local San-Frantsisko ko'rfazi hududi yangiliklar translyatori KQED filed a motion with the District Court to unseal the videotapes from the 2010 trial.^[200] The Court plans to maintain the seal until August 12, 2020.^[201][202]

Shuningdek qarang

• Kaliforniyada bir jinsli nikoh
• Qayta nikoh holatlarida – 2008 California State Supreme Court case holding same-sex marriage to be a right under the state constitution
• Taklif 8 – State constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in California
• Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Vindzorga qarshi – a 2013 case, decided the same day as Hollingsworth v. Perry, that struck down Section 3 of the Nikohni himoya qilish to'g'risidagi qonun.
• Obergefell va Xodjes
• Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Oliy sudi ishlarining ro'yxati, 570-jild
• 8 – a staged verbatim reenactment ning Perri Shvartseneggerga qarshi district trial based on the transcripts and interviews.
• 8 ga qarshi ish – a 2014 documentary film following the case from its initiation through to the final Supreme Court decision

Adabiyotlar

Qo'shimcha o'qish

• Eskrij, Uilyam N., kichik (2012). "To'qqizinchi davr Perri Qaror va nikoh tengligi konstitutsiyaviy siyosati ". Stenford qonuni sharhi onlayn. 64: 93–98.
• Rosky, Clifford J. (2011). "Perri Shvartseneggerga qarshi va bir jinsli nikoh to'g'risidagi qonunning kelajagi " (PDF). Arizona qonun sharhi. 53 (3): 913–983.
• G'arbiy, Robin L. (2012). "Nikoh - bu nikoh - bu nikoh: ning chegaralari Perri va Braunga qarshi". Jorjtaun jamoat huquqi bo'yicha tadqiqot ishlari No 12-027. SSRN  2020293.

Tashqi havolalar

• Teng huquqlar uchun Amerika jamg'armasi, sudga murojaat qilgan tashkilot.
• Nikohni himoya qiling, 8-taklif homiylari.
• Sinovda tenglik, sud jarayonini yoritish va tahlil qilish.
• Post-DOMA va Post-Prop 8 ma'lumotlar varaqalari, Lambda yuridik, 2013 yil 28-iyun.
• 8-taklif qonuniy mag'lubiyatga olib boradigan uzoq va burilish yo'lidir Maura Dolan tomonidan Los Anjeles Tayms 2013 yil 6-iyulda.

Video

• AQSh tuman sudining rasmiy ish joyi
• AQSh to'qqizinchi davri rasmiy ish sayti
• AQSh okrug sudi videoni qayta ijro etish bo'yicha sud jarayoni

Fayllar

• Matni Xollingsvort va Perri, 570 BIZ. 693 (2013 y.) (Oliy sud qarori) quyidagi manzilda mavjud:  Yustiya  Oyez (og'zaki tortishuv audio)  Oliy sud (slip xulosasi) 
• Sudya Von Uokerning AQSh okrug sudining qarori
• To'qqizinchi tuman qarori (AQSh Oliy sudi tomonidan bo'shatilgan)
• To'qqizinchi davrda buyurtmani ko'tarish uchun turar joy
• Amicus Curiae arxivi: San-Frantsisko Bosh prokurori
• Yuridik hujjatlar: Amerikaning teng huquqlar jamg'armasi
• Huquqiy hujjatlar: Justia Dockets
• AQSh tuman sudining sud dalillari
• Sudya Ware qarori bilan sud videotasmalarini chiqarish to'g'risida
• Sinov video lentalarini muhrlash to'g'risidagi to'qqizinchi tuman qarori
• 8. AQSh Oliy sudida sertifikatari uchun ariza: Taklif homiylari 8

Yangiliklar

• "Gey nikoh uchun konservativ ish", Teodor B. Olson, Newsweek, 2010 yil 19-yanvar
• Teodor Olson va Devid Boys sud jarayoni, dalillar va qonuniy yondashuvni muhokama qilmoqdalar jurnalist bilan Bill Moyers kuni PBS, 2010 yil 26 fevral.
• "Oliy sud qaroridan keyin Amerikada nikoh tengligi" Milliy radio jurnalist Stiv Inskeep tomonidan joylashtirilgan Devid Boys bilan ikkita muhim bir jinsli nikoh ishlarining tarixi va natijalarini muhokama qiladi Aspen instituti 2013 yil 12-iyulda.