Obergefell va Xodjes - Obergefell v. Hodges

"Obergefell" qayta yo'naltirishlar. Ishning da'vogari uchun qarang Jim Obergefell.

Obergefell va Xodjes
Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Oliy sudining muhri
2015 yil 28 aprelda bahslashdi
2015 yil 26-iyunda qaror qilingan
To'liq ish nomiJeyms Obergefell va boshq., Arizachilar v. Richard Xodjes, Direktor, Ogayo shtati Sog'liqni saqlash boshqarmasi va boshq.
Docket no.14-556
Iqtiboslar576 BIZ. 644 (Ko'proq )
135 S. Ct. 2584; 192 LED. 2d 609; 83 AQSh dollari 4592; 25 Fla L. Haftalik Fed. S 472; 2015 yil WL 2473451; 2015 AQSh LEXIS 4250; 2015 BL 204553
Tegishli holatlarBurke va Beshear, DeBoer va Snayder, Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Vindzorga qarshi, Tanco va Haslam, Sevgi va Beshear.
DalilOg'zaki bahs
Fikr bildirishFikr bildirish
Xolding
O'n to'rtinchi tuzatish davlatdan bir xil jinsdagi ikki kishi o'rtasidagi nikohni litsenziyalashni va bir xil jinsdagi ikki kishining nikohi qonuniy ravishda litsenziyalangan va shtatdan tashqarida amalga oshirilganda nikohni tan olishni talab qiladi. Oltinchi davr uchun Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Apellyatsiya sudi teskari. Beyker va Nelson ag'darildi.
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'pchilikKennedi, unga Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan qo'shildi
Turli xilRoberts, unga Skaliya, Tomas qo'shildi
Turli xilTomas qo'shilgan Skaliya
Turli xilTomas, Skaliya bilan birga
Turli xilAlito, unga Skaliya, Tomas qo'shildi
Amaldagi qonunlar
AQSh Konst. o'zgartirish. XIV
Ushbu ish avvalgi hukmni yoki qarorlarni bekor qildi
Beyker va Nelson (1971)[1]

Obergefell va Xodjes, 576 BIZ. 644 (2015) (/ˈoʊbarɡəfɛl/ OH-bar-ga-fel ), a belgi inson huquqlari vaziyatda Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Oliy sudi deb qaror qildi asosiy huquq ga uylanmoq kafolatlangan bir jinsli juftliklar ikkalasi tomonidan Amalga oshiriladigan ishlar to'g'risidagi band va Teng himoya qilish moddasi ning Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Konstitutsiyasiga o'n to'rtinchi o'zgartirish. 5–4 qaror barchasini talab qiladi ellik davlat, Kolumbiya okrugi, va Izolyatsiya zonalari bir jinsli er-xotinlarning nikohlarini qarama-qarshi jinsdagi er-xotinlarning nikohlari bilan bir xil sharoitlarda va ularga hamrohlik qiladigan barcha huquq va majburiyatlarni bajarish va amalga oshirish va tan olish.[2][3]

2012 yil yanvaridan 2014 yil fevraligacha Michigan, Ogayo, Kentukki va Tennesi shtatlaridagi da'vogarlar federal okrug sudlari bilan yakunlandi Obergefell va Xodjes. Barcha tuman sudlari da'vogarlar to'g'risida qaror chiqargandan so'ng, ajrimlar ustidan shikoyat qilindi Oltinchi davr. 2014 yil noyabr oyida bir qator apellyatsiya sudi dan boshlab chiqarilgan qarorlar To'rtinchi, Ettinchi, To'qqizinchi va O'ninchi O'chirish davlat tomonidan bir xil jinsdagi nikohni taqiqlash konstitutsiyaga zid bo'lganligi sababli, Oltinchi davra uni majburiy ravishda qaror qildi Beyker va Nelson va bunday taqiqlarni konstitutsiyaviy deb topdi.[4] Bu yaratdi davrlar o'rtasida bo'linish va Oliy sudning tekshiruviga olib keldi.

2015 yil 26 iyunda qaror qilingan, Obergefell ag'darildi Novvoy va barcha davlatlardan bir jinsli juftlarga nikoh litsenziyasini berish va tan olishni talab qiladi bir jinsli nikohlar boshqa yurisdiktsiyalarda haqiqiy tarzda amalga oshiriladi.[5] Bu o'rnatildi butun Qo'shma Shtatlar bo'ylab bir jinsli nikoh va uning hududlari. A ko'pchilik fikri Adolat muallifi Entoni Kennedi, Sud Konstitutsiya tomonidan barchaga kafolatlangan asosiy huquqlarning mohiyatini, bunday jarayonlarning amalga oshirilishini kechiktirish orqali shaxslarga etkazilgan zararni, demokratik jarayonlar sodir bo'layotgan paytda ko'rib chiqdi;[6] va shu vaqtdan beri rivojlanib kelayotgan kamsitish va tengsizlikning rivojlanayotgan tushunchasi Novvoy.[7]

Gacha Obergefell, bir jinsli nikoh allaqachon qonun, sud qarori yoki saylovchilar tashabbusi bilan o'ttiz oltita shtatda o'rnatilgan edi Kolumbiya okrugi va Guam.[3]

Tuman sudlarida da'vo arizalari

AQSh Oliy sudining ishi Obergefell va Xodjes bitta sud jarayonining yakuni emas.[8] Oxir oqibat, bu dastlab o'n bir jinsli juftliklar, ularning ettita bolalari, beva ayol, farzand asrab olish agentligi va dafn marosimlari direktori vakili bo'lgan pastki sudlarning oltita ishini birlashtirishdir. Ushbu holatlar Michigan, Ogayo, Kentukki va Tennesi shtatlaridan kelgan.[8] Oltita federal okrug sudining bir jinsli juftliklar va boshqa qarorlari bo'yicha chiqarilgan barcha qarorlari da'vogarlar.

Michigan ishi: DeBoer va Snayder

Shuningdek qarang: DeBoer va Snayder

Bitta holat Michigan shtatidan kelib chiqib, ayol juftlik va ularning uchta farzandi bilan bog'liq. Aprel DeBoer va Jeyn Rouus 2007 yil fevral oyida majburiyat marosimini o'tkazdilar. 2009 yil 25 yanvarda o'g'il tug'ilib, uni noyabr oyida Rovse qabul qildi. 2010 yil 1 fevralda qizi dunyoga keldi va 2011 yil aprel oyida DeBoer tomonidan asrab olindi. Ikkinchi o'g'li 2009 yil 9 noyabrda tug'ilgan va Rowse tomonidan 2011 yil oktyabr oyida asrab olingan. Michigan qonunchiligida faqat yolg'iz odamlar yoki turmush qurganlar tomonidan farzandlikka olish mumkin edi. Binobarin, 2012 yil 23-yanvar kuni DeBoer va Rowse sudga da'vo arizasi bilan murojaat qilishdi Michigan shtatining Sharqiy okrugi uchun Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari okrug sudi (Janubiy Division, Detroyt), DeBoer va Snayder, Michigan qabul qilinishi to'g'risidagi qonun konstitutsiyaga zid edi. Richard Snayder, etakchi sudlanuvchi, o'shanda Michigan gubernatori bo'lgan.[9]

2012 yil 29 avgustdagi sud majlisi davomida sudya Bernard A. Fridman da'vogarlarning sud ishi yuzasidan shikoyatlarini bildirishdi va ular o'zlarining shikoyatlarini davlatning bir jinsli nikohni taqiqlashiga qarshi chiqish uchun o'zgartirish taklif qilishdi.[10] Da'vogarlar shikoyatiga tegishli ravishda 7 sentyabr kuni o'zgartirish kiritdilar.[11] 2013 yil 7 martda bo'lib o'tgan sud jarayonida sudya Fridman ishni AQSh Oliy sudi qaror chiqmaguncha kechiktirishga qaror qildi Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Vindzorga qarshi va Xollingsvort va Perri, rahbarlik qilish umidida.[12][13] 16 oktyabrda Fridman sud jarayonini 2014 yil 25 fevralga tayinladi.[14][15] Sud jarayoni 7 mart kuni yakunlandi.[16] 21 mart kuni sudya Fridman da'vogarlar ustidan qaror chiqarib, "ba'zi bir ustun qonuniy manfaatlarsiz, davlat o'z oilaviy munosabatlar vakolatidan oilalarni mavjud bo'lmagan holda qonun chiqarishi uchun foydalana olmaydi. Bir jinslilar kontekstida bunday qiziqishni o'rnatolmagani uchun nikoh, [davlat nikoh taqiqi] turolmaydi. "[17]

Ogayo shtatidagi holatlar

Obergefell va Kasich

Tashqarida Oliy sud 2015 yil 26 iyun kuni ertalab Jeyms Obergefell (oldingi, markaz) va advokat Al Gerxardshteyn (oldinga, chapga)[18][19] uning tarixiy qaroriga munosabat bildiring.

Ikki holat Ogayo shtatidan kelib tushdi, birinchisi, oxir-oqibat erkak juftlik, beva ayol va dafn marosimi direktori bilan bog'liq. 2013 yil iyun oyida, AQSh Oliy sudining qaroridan so'ng Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Vindzorga qarshi, Jeyms "Jim" Obergefell (/ˈoʊbarɡəfɛl/ OH-bar-ga-fel ) va Jon Artur ularning munosabatlarini qonuniy tan olish uchun turmush qurishga qaror qilishdi. Ular 11 iyul kuni Merilendda turmush qurishgan. Ogayo shtati, ularning nikohlarini tan olmaydilar, ular sudga murojaat qildilar, Obergefell va Kasich, ichida Ogayo shtatining janubiy okrugi uchun AQSh sudi (Western Division, Cincinnati) 2013 yil 19-iyulda davlat qonuniy ravishda shtatdan tashqarida turmush qurgan bir jinsli juftliklarni kamsitayotganini da'vo qilmoqda. Bosh sudlanuvchi Ogayo shtati gubernatori edi Jon Kasich.[20] Bitta sherik, Jon Artur edi ayanchli kasal va azob chekish amiotrofik lateral skleroz (ALS), ular Ogayo shtatidagi ro'yxatga olish idorasidan boshqa sherik Jeyms Obergefellni uning omon qolgan turmush o'rtog'i sifatida aniqlashlarini xohlashdi. o'lim to'g'risidagi guvohnoma, ularning asosida Merilenddagi nikoh. Ogayo shtatidagi mahalliy ro'yxatga olish idorasi bir jinsli turmush qurgan juftlikni kamsitish konstitutsiyaga zid bo'lganiga rozi bo'ldi,[21] ammo shtat Bosh prokuraturasi Ogayo shtatining bir jinsli nikoh taqiqini himoya qilish rejalarini e'lon qildi.[22][23][24][25]

Ish davom etar ekan, 22 iyul kuni tuman sudyasi Timoti S. Qora er-xotinning iltimosini qondirdi, vaqtincha cheklash Ogayo shtatidagi ro'yxatga olish idorasi, agar u marhumning "uylangan" va uning sherigining "tirik qolgan turmush o'rtog'i" maqomini qayd etmagan bo'lsa, har qanday o'lim to'g'risidagi guvohnomani qabul qilishidan voz kechadi[21] Blek "Ogayo shtati tarixida Ogayo shtati qonuni aniq bo'lgan: Ogayo shtati tashqarisida tuzilgan nikoh Ogayo shtatida, agar u nikoh tuzilgan bo'lsa, amal qiladi" deb yozgan va amakivachchalari yoki voyaga etmaganlar o'rtasidagi ba'zi nikohlar, agar ular nikohsiz bo'lsa, noqonuniy ekanligini ta'kidlagan. Ogayo shtati, boshqa yurisdiktsiyalarda tantanali ravishda qonuniy bo'lsa, davlat tomonidan tan olinadi.[26] Ogayo shtati Bosh prokurori Mayk DeWine dastlabki buyruq ustidan shikoyat qilmasligini ko'rsatdi.[27] 13 avgustda Blek vaqtinchalik cheklov tartibini dekabr oxirigacha uzaytirdi va og'zaki tortishuvlarni rejalashtirdi buyruq yordami doimiy bo'lib, 18 dekabrga mo'ljallangan.[28][29]

Ayni paytda, 2013 yil 22-iyulda Devid Mikener va Uilyam Gerbert Ives Delaverda turmush qurishdi. Ularning uchta asrab oluvchi farzandi bor edi.[30] 27 avgust kuni Uilyam Ives Ogayo shtatining Tsinsinnati shahrida kutilmaganda vafot etdi. Uning qoldiqlari Sinsinnati dafn marosimida, o'lim haqidagi guvohnoma berilguniga qadar, marhumning dafn marosimi marosimidan oldin talab qilingan. Tirik qolgan turmush o'rtog'i Devid Mitshenerning ismi Ogayo shtati qonuni bilan o'lim to'g'risidagi guvohnomada kelmasligi sababli, u sudga murojaat qilib, 3 sentyabr kuni da'vogar sifatida qo'shilgan.[31]

Yangi o'zgartirilgan ish oldinga siljiganida, 25 sentyabrda Blek da'vogarlarning 19 sentyabrdagi gubernatorni va shtat bosh prokurorini javobgar sifatida ishdan bo'shatish va janoza direktori Robert Grunnni da'vo arizasiga qo'shib qo'yish to'g'risida iltimosnomasini qondirdi, shunda u tushuntirishga ega bo'lishi mumkin edi. uning mijozi Jeyms Obergefell singari bir jinsli turmush o'rtoqlari bo'lgan mijozlarga xizmat ko'rsatishda Ogayo shtati qonunlariga binoan uning qonuniy majburiyatlari. Ogayo shtati sog'liqni saqlash boshqarmasi direktori Teodor Vymyslo asosiy ayblanuvchi sifatida almashtirildi va ish qayta ko'rib chiqildi Obergefell va Wymyslo.[32][33] 22 oktyabrda da'vogar Jon Artur vafot etdi. Davlat sudlanuvchilari ishni munozarali deb rad etishga o'tdilar. Sudya Blek 1-noyabrdagi buyrug'i bilan rad etish to'g'risidagi iltimosnomani rad etdi.[34] 23-dekabr kuni sudya Blek Ogayo shtatining boshqa yurisdiktsiyalardagi bir jinsli nikohlarni tan olishdan bosh tortishini kamsituvchi deb qaror qildi va Ogayo shtatiga o'lim to'g'risidagi guvohnomalar bo'yicha boshqa yurisdiktsiyalardagi bir jinsli nikohlarni tan olishni buyurdi.[35] U shunday deb yozgan edi: "Agar davlat boshqa yurisdiksiyada turmush qurgan bir jinsli er-xotinning nikohini amalda bekor qilsa, bu Oliy sud tomonidan maxsus himoya qilinadigan shaxsiy nikoh, oilaviy va samimiy munosabatlar sohasiga kirib boradi".[36][37]

Genri va Vymislo

Ogayo shtatidagi ikkinchi ish to'rt juftlik, bola va farzand asrab olish agentligi bilan bog'liq. Jorjiya shtati Nikol Yorkmit va Pamela Yorksmit 2008 yil 14 oktyabrda Kaliforniyada turmushga chiqdilar. Ular 2010 yilda o'g'il ko'rdilar va yana farzand kutmoqdalar. 2011 yilda Kelli Nuy va Kelli Makkraken Massachusets shtatida turmush qurishdi. Ular bolani kutishgan. Jozef J. Vitale va Robert Talmas 2011 yil 20 sentyabrda Nyu-Yorkda turmush qurishdi. 2013 yilda ular farzand asrab olish agentligi - Adoption STAR xizmatiga murojaat qilishdi va nihoyat 2014 yilning 17 yanvarida o'g'ilni asrab olishdi, o'sha kuni Brittani Genri va Brittni Rojers Nyu-Yorkda turmushga chiqdi. Ular ham o'g'il kutishgan. Uchta ayol juftlik Ogayo shtatida istiqomat qilar edi, ularning har biri keyinchalik 2014 yilda bola tug'ilishini kutishgan. Vitale va Talmas 2013 yilda Ogayo shtatida tug'ilgan o'z farzand asrab olgan o'g'li Child Doe bilan Nyu-Yorkda yashagan va shuningdek, ota-onasi orqali da'vogar bo'lgan. 2014 yil 10 fevralda qonuniy ravishda turmush qurgan to'rt juft sudga murojaat qilishdi, Genri va Vymislo, shuningdek Ogayo shtatining janubiy okrugi uchun AQSh sudi (G'arbiy bo'lim, Sincinnati), davlatni ikkala ota-onani ham o'z farzandlarining tug'ilganlik to'g'risidagi guvohnomalarida ro'yxatga olishga majbur qilish. Adoption S.T.A.R. asrab olish agentligi, Ogayo shtatidagi qonun bo'yicha, ushbu xizmatni shtatda farzand asrab oladigan bir jinsli ota-onalarga taqdim etishga majbur bo'lganligi sababli etarli bo'lmagan xizmatlar tufayli sudga berildi. O'shanda ayblanuvchi Teodor Vymyslo Ogayo shtati Sog'liqni saqlash vazirligining direktori bo'lgan.[38][39]

Ish oldinga siljiganligi sababli, da'vogarlar o'zlarining shikoyatlarini o'zgartirib, suddan Ogayo shtatining bir jinsli nikohga qo'yilgan taqiqni konstitutsiyaga zid deb topishini so'rashdi. Sudya Blek shtatga o'z qaroriga qarshi apellyatsiyani tayyorlashga 4 aprel kuni 14 aprelda Ogayo shtatidan boshqa yurisdiktsiyalardagi bir jinsli nikohlarni tan olishni talab qiladigan buyruq chiqarishi haqida e'lon qilib, vaqt berdi.[40][41] Bosh sudlanuvchi, Ogayo shtatining sog'liqni saqlash bo'yicha direktori Ted Vymislo ish bilan bog'liq bo'lmagan sabablarga ko'ra iste'foga chiqqandan so'ng, Lens Xims vaqtinchalik direktorga aylandi va ish qayta ko'rib chiqildi. Genri va Xims.[33][42] 14-aprelda Blek Ogayo shtatining boshqa yurisdiktsiyalardagi bir jinsli nikohlarni tan olishiga qaror qildi,[43][44] va 16 aprel kuni da'vogarlar tomonidan so'ralgan tug'ilganlik to'g'risidagi guvohnomalardan tashqari, o'z qarorining ijrosini to'xtatdi.[45][46]

Kentukki holatlari

Shuningdek qarang: Burke va Beshear

Burke va Beshear

Da'vogarlar Gregori Burk (chap) va Maykl DeLeon (to'g'ri)[47] tashqarida nishonlash Oliy sud bino 2015 yil 26 iyunda.

Ikki holat Kentukki shtatidan kelib chiqqan, birinchisi oxir-oqibat to'rtta bir jinsli juftlik va ularning oltita bolalari bilan bog'liq. Gregori Burk va Maykl DeLeon 2004 yil 29 martda Kanadaning Ontario shahrida turmushga chiqdilar. Ularning ikkita farzandi bor edi: da'vogar I.D., o'n to'rt yoshli qiz va da'vogar I.D., o'n besh yoshli bola. Randell Jonson va Pol Kempon 2008 yil 3 iyulda Kaliforniyada turmushga chiqdilar. Ularning to'rtta farzandi bor edi: Da'vogarlar T.J.-C. va egizak o'n sakkiz yoshli o'g'il T.J.-C., da'vogar D.J.-C., o'n to'rt yoshli bola va da'vogar M.J.-C., o'n yoshli qiz. Jimmi Mead va Lyuter Barlou 2009 yil 30 iyulda Ayova shtatida turmush qurishdi. Kimberli Franklin va Tamera Boyd 2010 yil 15 iyulda Konnektikutda turmushga chiqdilar. Ularning barchasi Kentukki shahrida istiqomat qilishdi.[48] 2013 yil 26-iyulda Burk va DeLeon va ular orqali ularning ikki farzandi sudga murojaat qilishdi, Burke va Beshear, ichida Kentukki g'arbiy okrugi uchun Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari okrug sudi (Louisville Division), Kentukki tomonidan bir jinsli nikohni taqiqlash va boshqa yurisdiktsiyalardagi bir jinsli nikohlarni tan olishga qarshi. Stiv Beshear, etakchi sudlanuvchi, o'shanda Kentukki gubernatori bo'lgan.[49]

Keyinchalik, 16-avgust kuni shikoyatga Jonson va Kempi, ular orqali to'rt nafar farzandi va Mead va Barloularni sudga jalb qilish to'g'risida o'zgartirish kiritildi, yana davlatning bir jinsli nikohni taqiqlashi va boshqa jinsdagi nikohni tan olish masalasi muhokama qilindi. yurisdiktsiyalar.[50] 1-noyabr kuni shikoyat Franklin va Boydni sudga jalb qilish uchun yana o'zgartirildi, endi Kentukki tomonidan boshqa yurisdiktsiyalardagi bir jinsli nikohlarni tan olish to'g'risidagi taqiq paydo bo'ldi.[51] Dastlab, er-xotin o'zlarini sudga berishgan, Franklin va Beshear, bilan Kentukki sharqiy okrugi uchun Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari tuman sudi, ammo ishni rasmiy ravishda birlashtirish niyatida qulaylik uchun joyni o'zgartirish to'g'risida buyruq berildi Bourke.[52] Konsolidatsiya hech qachon sodir bo'lmagan,[53] va ushbu alohida ish yangi da'vo qo'zg'atmaganligi uchun bekor qilingan.[54] 2014 yil 12 fevralda sudya Jon G. Heyburn II sud qarorini chiqardi: "Oxir oqibat, sud Kentukki bir xil jinsdagi nikohni tan olishdan bosh tortganligi AQSh Konstitutsiyasining qonun bo'yicha, hatto eng kechiktirilgan qayta ko'rib chiqish standarti bo'yicha teng himoya kafolatini buzadi degan xulosaga keldi. Shunga ko'ra, Kentukki nizomi va ushbu rad etishni talab qiladigan konstitutsiyaviy tuzatish konstitutsiyaga ziddir. "[55]

Sevgi va Beshear

Kentukki shtatidagi ikkinchi holat, Sevgi va Beshear, ikkita erkak juftlikni o'z ichiga olgan. Moris Blanchard va Dominik Jeyms 2006 yil 3 iyunda diniy nikoh marosimini o'tkazdilar. Kentukki okrugining xizmatchilari bir necha bor ularga nikoh litsenziyalaridan bosh tortdilar. Timoti Sevgi va Lourens Ysunza o'ttiz yildan buyon er-xotin bo'lib yashashgan, 2014 yil 13 fevralda ularga nikoh litsenziyasi rad etilgan. Jefferson okrugi Klerkning idorasi. Ertasi kuni 14 fevral kuni juftliklar qo'shilish to'g'risida iltimosnoma yuborishdi Burke va Beshear, davlatning bir jinsli nikohni taqiqlashiga qarshi chiqdi.[56] Ushbu iltimos 27 fevral kuni qondirildi.[57] va ish shunday bo'ldi ikkiga bo'lingan, zudlik bilan harakat sifatida qayta tiklandi Sevgi va Beshear, 28 fevral kuni.[58] 2014 yil 1 iyulda sudya Heyburn o'z qarorini chiqardi. U "gomoseksual shaxslar a deyarli shubhali sinf ",[59] va Kentukki shtatining bir jinsli nikohni taqiqlash to'g'risidagi qonunlari "AQSh Konstitutsiyasiga kiritilgan o'n to'rtinchi tuzatishning teng himoyalash bandini buzganligi va ular bekor va ijro etilishi mumkin emas" degan buyruq berdi.[60] Taqiqlar bo'yicha davlatning dalillarini baholash jarayonida u "bu dalillar jiddiy odamlarning dalillari emas" dedi.[61]

Tennessi ishi: Tanco va Haslam

Shuningdek qarang: Tanco va Haslam

Bitta ish Tennesi shtatidan kelib chiqqan bo'lib, unda to'rtta bir jinsli juftliklar ishtirok etgan. Joy "Johno" Espejo va Metyu Mansell 2008 yil 5 avgustda Kaliforniyada turmush qurishdi. 2009 yil 25 sentyabrda ular ikkita tarbiyachi bolani asrab olishdi. Mansellning ishi davlatga o'tkazilgandan so'ng, ular 2012 yil may oyida Tennesi shtatining Franklin shahriga ko'chib ketishdi. Kelli Miller va Vanessa DeVilles 2011 yil 24 iyulda Nyu-Yorkda turmush qurishdi, keyinchalik Tennessiga ko'chib o'tdilar. Armiya zahirasi serjanti Ijpe DeKoe va Tomas Kostura 2011 yil 4 avgustda Nyu-Yorkda turmushga chiqdilar. 2012 yil may oyida Afg'onistonda xizmat safari tugagandan so'ng, serjant DeKoe Memfisda (Tennessi shtati) dam olindi, u er-xotin keyinchalik ko'chib ketishdi. 2013 yil 3 sentyabrda Mudofaa vazirligi ularning nikohlarini taniy boshladi, ammo davlat buni tan olmadi. Valeriya Tanco va Sofiya Jesti 2011 yil 9 sentyabrda Nyu-Yorkda turmush qurishdi, keyin Tennesi shtatiga ko'chib o'tdilar, u erda ular universitet o'qituvchilari bo'lgan. Ular birinchi farzandlarini 2014 yilda kutishgan edi. 2013 yil 21 oktyabrda Tennesi shtatidan tashqarida nikohlarini tan olishni istab, to'rt juftlik sudga murojaat qilishdi, Tanco va Haslam, ichida AQShning Tennesi shtatining O'rta okrug sudi (Nashvil bo'limi). Uilyam Edvards Xaslam, etakchi sudlanuvchi, o'shanda Tennesi gubernatori bo'lgan.[62]

Ish davom etar ekan, 2013 yil 19-noyabrda da'vogarlar davlatga ularga nisbatan nikohni tan olish taqiqini qo'llashni buyuradigan dastlabki buyruq uchun harakat qilishdi.[63] 2014 yil 10 martda da'vogar juftlik Kelli Miller va Vanessa DeVilles ishdan voz kechishdi.[64] 14 mart kuni sudya Aleta Artur Trauger davlatdan uchta da'vogar juftlikning nikohlarini tan olishni talab qiladigan dastlabki buyruq chiqardi. U shunday deb yozgan edi: "Ayni paytda barcha belgilar Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Konstitutsiyasi nuqtai nazaridan da'vogarlarning nikohi heteroseksual juftliklar bilan teng sharoitda o'rnatilishini va bir jinsli nikohga qarshi prokuratura tez orada Amerika tarixi yilnomasida izoh. "[65] Shtat darhol ushbu qarorni bekor qilish to'g'risida iltimosnoma kiritdi, ammo 20 mart kuni sudya Trauger so'rovni rad etdi va "sud buyrug'i Tennesi shtatida bir jinsli juftliklar uchun nikoh qurish uchun eshiklarni ochmaydi ..." degan fikrda. faqat ushbu ishda muhokama qilinayotgan uchta bir jinsli juftlarga. "[66]

Oltinchi kontaktlarning zanglashiga olib chiqish

Hakam Jeffri Satton Oltinchi davrni yozdi ko'pchilik fikri bir jinsli nikoh taqiqlarini qo'llab-quvvatlash, bu sabab elektron bo'linish bu tetiklanishga yordam berdi Oliy sud ko'rib chiqish.[67]

To'rt federal okrug sudining olti qarori ustidan shikoyat qilingan Oltinchi davr uchun Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Apellyatsiya sudi. Ogayo shtati sog'liqni saqlash direktori apellyatsiya berdi Obergefell va Wymyslo 2014 yil 16 yanvarda.[68] Tennesi gubernatori murojaat qildi Tanco va Haslam 18 mart kuni.[69] 21 mart kuni Michigan shtati gubernatori murojaat qildi DeBoer va Snayder.[70] Kentukki gubernatori murojaat qildi Burke va Beshear va Sevgi va Beshear navbati bilan 18 mart va 8 iyul kunlari.[71] Va 9 may kuni Ogayo shtati sog'liqni saqlash direktori murojaat qildi Genri va Xims.[72]

Keyinchalik, 20-may kuni Oltinchi davr birlashtirildi Obergefell va Xims bilan Genri va Xims brifing va og'zaki bahslashish maqsadida.[73] (15 aprel kuni Ogayo shtati gubernatori Jon Kasichdan keyin 21 fevralda Lens Ximes sog'liqni saqlashning vaqtinchalik direktori etib tayinlandi,[42] Obergefell restayling qilindi Obergefell va Xims.[74]) Tomonlarning oldindan taklifiga binoan Oltinchi davr ham birlashtirildi Burke va Beshear va Sevgi va Beshear 16-iyul kuni.[75] 6 avgust kuni sudyalardan tashkil topgan uch sudyadan iborat hay'at Jeffri Satton, Debora L. Kuk va Marta Kreyg Daughtri to'rt holatda ham og'zaki bahslarni eshitgan.[76][77][78][79] 11 avgust kuni Richard Xodjes, Ogayo shtati gubernatori Jon Kasichning tayinlanishi bilan Ximesni Ogayo shtatining sog'liqni saqlash bo'yicha direktori etib tayinladi,[80] va Obergefell yana takrorlandi, bu safar uning yakuniy takrorlanishi sifatida Obergefell va Xodjes.[33][81]

2014 yil 6-noyabr kuni qaror qabul qilindi DeBoer va Snayder, Oltinchi davra 2-1 ga binoan, Ogayo shtatining bir jinsli nikohni taqiqlashi AQSh Konstitutsiyasini buzmagan. Sud, buni AQSh Oliy sudining 1972 yildagi shunga o'xshash ish bo'yicha majburiyat bilan bog'liqligini aytdi, Beyker va Nelson, bir jinsli er-xotinning nikoh to'g'risidagi da'vosini "katta federal savolga muhtojligi uchun" rad etdi.[82] Ko'pchilik uchun yozish, hakam Satton ushbu ishda bir jinsli juftliklar nomidan keltirilgan dalillarni ham rad etdi: "Ammo da'vogarlarning biron bir nazariyasi nikoh ta'rifini konstitutsiyalashtirish va bu masalani asos solingan paytdan beri olib tashlash uchun asos bermaydi. : shtat saylovchilari qo'lida. "[83][84]

Qarama-qarshi, sudya Dodri yozgan:

To'g'ri natija juda aniq bo'lgani uchun, ko'pchilik maqsadga muvofiq ravishda qarama-qarshi pozitsiyani egallagan deb taxmin qilish istagi paydo bo'ladi. elektron bo'linish Oliy sud tomonidan sertifikat berilishini va shtatdagi noaniqlikni tugatishni va shtat qonunlaridagi mavjud tafovutni tahdid qiladigan davlatlararo tartibsizlikni tugatishni talab qiladigan bir jinsli nikohning qonuniyligi to'g'risida.[84][85]

Oliy sud oldida

Sertiorari yozuvlari uchun arizalar

Da'vogarlar oltita tuman sudining har biridan apellyatsiya shikoyati Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Oliy sudi. 2014 yil 14 noyabrda bir jinsli juftliklar, beva ayollar, da'vogar bola va dafn marosimi direktori DeBoer va Snayder, Obergefell va Xodjesva Tanco va Haslam hujjatlari uchun arizalar topshirdi sertifikat sud bilan. Asrab olish agentligi Adoption S.T.A.R. ariza bermadi.[86][87] Bir jinsli juftliklar Burke va Beshear 18 noyabr kuni sudga sertifikatari varaqasini olish to'g'risida iltimosnoma bilan murojaat qildi.[88] The DeBoer ariza beruvchilar sudga bir jinsli juftliklarning turmush qurish huquqini berish buzilganmi yoki yo'qmi degan savol bilan murojaat qildilar O'n to'rtinchi o'zgartirish.[89] The Obergefell arizachilar suddan Ogayo shtatining boshqa yurisdiktsiyalardagi nikohlarni tan olishdan bosh tortishi o'n to'rtinchi tuzatishning kafolatlarini buzganligini ko'rib chiqishni so'rashdi. tegishli jarayon va teng himoya va shtatning boshqa davlatni qabul qilish to'g'risidagi qarorini tan olishdan bosh tortishi AQSh Konstitutsiyasini buzganmi To'liq imon va kredit to'g'risidagi shart.[90] The Tanco ariza beruvchilar suddan uchta savolni ko'rib chiqishni so'rashdi: bir jinsli juftliklarning turmush qurish huquqidan mahrum qilish, shu jumladan davlatdan tashqari nikohni tan olish, o'n to'rtinchi tuzatishning belgilangan tartibini yoki teng himoya qoidalarini buzganmi; ularning davlatdan tashqari nikohlarini tan olishdan bosh tortish bir jinsli juftliklarning davlatlararo sayohat qilish huquqini buzganligi; va yo'qmi Beyker va Nelson (1972), bir xil jinsdagi juftliklarning nikoh da'volarini qisqacha rad etib, majburiy pretsedent bo'lib qoldi.[91] Va nihoyat Bourke ariza beruvchilar sudga ikkita savol berishdi: davlat bir jinsdagi juftliklarning turmush qurishini taqiqlash bilan o'n to'rtinchi tuzatishning tegishli protsedurasini yoki teng himoyalash qoidalarini buzadimi yoki bu davlatdan tashqaridagi bir jinsli nikohlarni tan olishdan bosh tortadimi? .[92]

Qisqacha ma'lumot

2015 yil 16 yanvarda AQSh Oliy sudi bir jinsli nikohni taqiqlagan davlat qonunlariga qarshi to'rtta bir jinsli nikoh ishlarini birlashtirdi.DeBoer va Snayder (Michigan), Obergefell va Xodjes (Ogayo), Burke va Beshear (Kentukki) va Tanco va Haslam (Tennessi) - va ishni ko'rib chiqishga rozi bo'ldi. 17 aprelda yakunlanadigan brifing jadvalini belgilab qo'ydi. Sud quyidagi savollar bo'yicha brifing va og'zaki bahslashishni buyurdi:

  1. O'n to'rtinchi tuzatish davlat tomonidan bir jinsdagi ikki kishi o'rtasidagi nikohni litsenziyalashni talab qiladimi?
  2. O'n to'rtinchi tuzatish davlat tomonidan bir xil jinsdagi ikki kishining nikohi qonuniy ravishda litsenziyalangan va davlatdan tashqarida amalga oshirilganda nikohni tan olishni talab qiladimi?

Sud shuningdek, to'rtta ishning har biriga taraflarga faqat o'zlarining muayyan ishlarida ko'tarilgan savollarni hal qilishni buyurdi. Shunday qilib, Obergefell faqat ikkinchi savolni ko'taradi, boshqa yurisdiktsiyalardan bir jinsli nikohlarni tan olish.[93][94][95]

Ishda 148 bor edi amici curiae qisqacha ma'lumotlari AQSh Oliy sudining boshqa har qanday ishidan ko'ra ko'proq taqdim etilgan,[96][97] shu jumladan tarixiy amicus qisqacha, tomonidan yozilgan Morgan Lyuis sherigi Syuzan Beyker Manning, mamlakat bo'ylab bir jinsli nikohni qonuniylashtirish bo'yicha biznes ishini bayon qilgan 379 ta tadbirkorlik sub'ektlari nomidan.[98][99][100]

Og'zaki bahs

Og'zaki bahslar ish bo'yicha 2015 yil 28 aprelda sud majlisi o'tkazilgan.[101][102] Da'vogarlarni fuqarolik huquqlari bo'yicha advokat himoya qildi Meri Bonauto va Vashington, DC huquqshunosi Duglas Hallward-Driemeier.[103] AQSh bosh advokati Donald B. Verrilli Jr., Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari vakili, shuningdek, bir jinsdagi juftliklar uchun bahslashdi.[103] Shtatlar sobiq tomonidan namoyish etilgan Michigan shtatidagi advokat Jon J. Bursch va Tennessi shtatidagi advokat advokati Jozef R. Ualen.[103][104] To'qqiz sudyadan tashqari, Klarens Tomasdan tashqari hamma sharhlar va savollar berib, ularning Konstitutsiya va bir jinsli nikoh kelajagi haqidagi pozitsiyalari haqida maslahatlar berishdi.[105] Og'zaki munozaralar paytida odil sudyalarning savollari va sharhlari ularning yakuniy qarorlarining nomukammal ko'rsatkichi bo'lsa-da,[106] odil sudlov bu masalaga yondashuvlarida keskin bo'linib, ko'pincha mafkuraviy yo'nalish bo'yicha bo'linib ketishdi, adolat Entoni Kennedi asosiy rol o'ynadi.[107][108][109] Bu Bosh sudya deb o'yladi Jon Roberts ham muhim bo'lishi mumkin. O'tmishdagi qarashlariga va boshqa fikrlariga qaramay Vindzor, Roberts og'zaki tortishuv paytida izohlar berib, ushbu taqiqlar jinsiy diskriminatsiyani tashkil qilishi mumkinligiga ishora qildi.[110][111] Biroq, uning fikriga ko'ra, u bir jinsli nikoh taqiqlari konstitutsiyaga ziddir.

Sudning fikri

2015 yil 26 iyun kuni ertalab Oliy sud, olomon Sud qarorini nishonlamoqda.

2015 yil 26 iyunda AQSh Oliy sudi 5–4-sonli qaroriga binoan O'n to'rtinchi tuzatish barcha davlatlardan bir jinsli nikoh berishni va boshqa shtatlarda berilgan bir jinsli nikohlarni tan olishni talab qiladi. Sud o'zining oldingi qarorini bekor qildi Beyker va Nelson Oltinchi davra avvalgi misol sifatida ishlatgan.

The Obergefell va Xodjes qarorining ikkinchi yilligida qabul qilindi Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Vindzorga qarshi Ushbu qarorning 3-qismini buzgan qaror Nikohni himoya qilish to'g'risidagi qonun (DOMA), bir xil jinsdagi nikohlarni konstitutsiyaga zid deb federal tan olishni rad etdi. Bu, shuningdek, o'n ikki yilligiga to'g'ri keldi Lourens va Texasga qarshi, bu 13 shtatda sodomiya qonunlarini bekor qildi. The Obergefell qaror sud vakolatining oxirgi kunidan ikkinchi kunigacha chiqarildi; va qarorning ertalab soat 9:59 da, xuddi shu jinsdagi juftliklar ko'plab shtatlarda turmush qura olmadilar.[112]

Odillarning fikri Obergefell ularning fikrlariga mos keladi Vindzor federal qonunlarga muvofiq DOMA tomonidan faqat qarama-qarshi jinsdagi nikohlarni ma'lum maqsadlar uchun tan olish rad etilgan.[113] Ikkala holatda ham Adolat Kennedi ko'pchilik fikrlarning muallifi bo'lgan va "beparvo ovoz berish" deb hisoblangan.[114]

Bosh sudya Roberts va Adliya Skaliya, Tomas va Alito har biri alohida-alohida yozdilar alohida fikr. Bosh sudya o'zining alohida fikrining bir qismini skameykadan o'qidi, bu birinchi marta 2005 yilda sudga kelganidan beri.[115][116]

Ko'pchilik fikri

adolat Entoni Kennedi bir jinsli er-xotinlar turmush qurishga haqli ekanligi to'g'risida sudning xulosasi muallifi.

adolat Entoni Kennedi muallifi ko'pchilik fikri va unga Adliis qo'shildi Rut Bader Ginsburg, Stiven Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor va Elena Kagan. Aksariyat davlat bir jinsli nikoh taqiqlarini buzilishi deb hisoblaydi O'n to'rtinchi o'zgartirish "s Tegishli jarayon va Teng himoya Maqolalar.

"Konstitutsiya hamma qo'lidan kelgancha erkinlikni va'da qilmoqda," - deb e'lon qildi Sud, "erkinlik, bu qonuniy sohada odamlarga o'z shaxsini aniqlash va ifoda etishga imkon beradigan muayyan o'ziga xos huquqlarni o'z ichiga oladi."[117] Iqtibos Grisvold va Konnektikut, Sud, deb tasdiqladi asosiy huquqlar O'n to'rtinchi tuzatishning tegishli protsedurasida "shaxsning qadr-qimmati va avtonomligi uchun muhim bo'lgan shaxsiy tanlovga, shu jumladan shaxsiy shaxsiyat va e'tiqodni belgilaydigan samimiy tanlovga taalluqlidir", ammo ushbu asosiy huquqlarning "identifikatsiyasi va himoyasi" hech qanday qisqartirilmagan formula. "[118] Kabi ishlarda Oliy sud aniqlaganidek Sevgi Virjiniyaga qarshi, Zablocki va Redhail va Tyorner va Safli, ushbu kengaytma asosiy nikoh huquqini o'z ichiga oladi.[119]

Sud javobgar davlatlarning "bir jinsli nikohga bo'lgan huquq" mavjudmi yoki yo'qmi degan fikrni rad etdi.[120] o'z pretsedentlarini talab qilib, "tegishli sinfni huquqdan chetlatish uchun etarli asos bor-yo'qligini so'rab, har tomonlama ma'noda turmush qurish huquqini so'radi." Darhaqiqat, ko'pchilik o'rtacha hisobda: "Agar huquqlar o'tmishda ularni kim tomonidan amalga oshirilganligi bilan belgilanadigan bo'lsa, u holda olingan amaliyotlar o'zlarining doimiy asoslari bo'lib xizmat qilishi mumkin va yangi guruhlar rad etilgandan keyin huquqlardan foydalana olmaydilar". Da oldingi qarorlarini keltirgan holda Sevgi Virjiniyaga qarshi va Lourens va Texasga qarshi, Sud ushbu masalani tegishli ravishda belgilab qo'ydi Obergefell.[121]

Sud, turmush qurishning asosiy huquqi bir jinsli juftliklarga nisbatan qo'llanilishining to'rtta aniq sabablarini sanab o'tdi Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Vindzorga qarshi uning muhokamasi davomida qo'llab-quvvatlash uchun. Birinchidan, "nikohga nisbatan shaxsiy tanlov huquqi individual avtonomiya tushunchasiga xosdir".[122] Ikkinchidan, "turmush qurish huquqi juda muhimdir, chunki u o'zga sadoqatli shaxslar uchun ahamiyati jihatidan hech kimdan farqli o'laroq ikki kishilik birlashishni qo'llab-quvvatlaydi", bu printsip bir jinsli juftliklarga ham teng ravishda qo'llaniladi.[123] Uchinchidan, nikohning asosiy huquqi "bolalar va oilalarni himoya qiladi va shu bilan farzand tarbiyasi, tug'ish va ta'limning tegishli huquqlaridan kelib chiqadi"; bir jinsli er-xotinlar farzandlari va oilalari bo'lganligi sababli, ular ushbu kafolatga loyiqdirlar, ammo Qo'shma Shtatlarda turmush qurish huquqi hech qachon nasl tug'ish bilan bog'liq bo'lmagan.[124] To'rtinchidan, va nihoyat, "nikoh bizning ijtimoiy tartibimizning asosidir" va "bu erda bir xil va qarshi jinsdagi juftliklar o'rtasida bu printsipga nisbatan farq yo'q"; Binobarin, bir jinsli juftliklarning turmush qurishiga yo'l qo'ymaslik ularni jamiyat bilan ziddiyatlarga olib keladi, nikohning son-sanoqsiz afzalliklarini inkor etadi va ularning munosabatlariga bejizlik sababsiz sabab bo'ladi.[125]

Sud sud protsessining erkinligi va teng huquqli himoya moddasining tengligi o'rtasidagi munosabatni ta'kidladi va bir jinsli nikoh taqiqlari ikkinchisini buzganligini aniqladi.[126] Bir jinsli er-xotinlarning erkinligi va tengligi sezilarli darajada og'irlashgan degan xulosaga kelib, sud ikkala bandni buzganligi uchun bir jinsli nikoh taqiqlarini bekor qildi, chunki bir jinsli juftliklar barcha ellik shtatda "bir xilda" turmush qurish uchun asosiy huquqdan foydalanishi mumkin. qarama-qarshi jinsdagi juftliklar kabi shartlar. "[127]

Davlatning nikoh to'g'risidagi qonunlari bir xil jinsdagi juftliklarga nisbatan turlicha bo'lgan "jiddiy va davomli zarar" va "beqarorlik va noaniqlik" tufayli va javobgar davlatlar ularning bir jinsli juftliklar bilan turmush qurishlari kerakligi to'g'risidagi qaror ularning buzilishiga olib keladi deb tan olganliklari sababli. boshqa shtatlarda amalga oshirilgan bir xil jinsdagi nikohlarni rad etish, Sud shuningdek, boshqa davlatlarda qonuniy ravishda amalga oshirilgan bir jinsli nikohlarni tan olishlari shart deb hisoblaydi.[128]

Javobgar davlatlarning dalillariga murojaat qilgan holda, Sud ta'kidlashicha, demokratik jarayon bir jinsli nikoh kabi masalalarni hal qilish uchun mos vosita bo'lishi mumkin, ammo asosiy huquqni amalga oshirish uchun biron bir shaxs faqat demokratik jarayonga ishonishi shart emas.[129] "Shaxs, unga zarar yetganda, hatto keng jamoatchilik rozi bo'lmagan taqdirda ham, qonun chiqaruvchi hokimiyat harakat qilishdan bosh tortgan taqdirda ham, konstitutsiyaviy himoya huquqidan foydalanishi mumkin", chunki "asosiy huquqlar ovozga qo'yilishi mumkin emas; ular natijaga bog'liq. Saylovlarsiz. "[130] Bundan tashqari, ushbu holatda bir jinsli juftliklarga qarshi qaror qabul qilish, demokratik jarayonni "asosiy huquqlarni tan olish va himoya qilishga ehtiyotkorlik bilan yondashish" sifatida ko'rsatish, vaqt oralig'ida bir jinsli juftliklarga zarar etkazishi mumkin.[131]

Bundan tashqari, Sud bir jinsli juftliklarga turmush qurishga ruxsat berish nikoh institutiga zarar etkazishi, nasl berish va nikoh o'rtasidagi aloqani uzish orqali qarama-qarshi jinsdagi nikohlarning kamayishiga olib keladi degan tushunchani rad etdi va bu tushunchani "qarama-qarshi" va "real bo'lmagan" deb atadi.[132] Buning o'rniga, Sud bir jinsli juftliklar "o'zlariga yoki uchinchi shaxslarga zarar etkazish xavfini tug'dirmasligini" ta'kidladi.[133] Ko'pchilik, deb ta'kidladilar Birinchi o'zgartirish bir jinsli nikoh bilan rozi bo'lmaganlarni himoya qiladi.[133]

So'ngra, Adliya Kennedi sudga shunday yozdi:

Hech bir ittifoq nikohdan ko'ra chuqurroq emas, chunki u sevgi, sadoqat, sadoqat, qurbonlik va oilaning eng yuqori ideallarini o'zida mujassam etgan. Nikoh ittifoqini tuzishda ikki kishi birdan buyukroq narsaga aylanadi. Ushbu holatlarda murojaat qilganlarning bir nechtasi ko'rsatganidek, nikoh hatto o'tgan o'limga ham bardosh bera oladigan muhabbatni o'zida mujassam etgan. Bu erkaklar va ayollarni nikoh g'oyasini hurmat qilmasliklarini aytish noto'g'ri tushunadi. Ularning iltijolari shundan iboratki, ular buni hurmat qilishadi, shu qadar chuqur hurmat qilishadiki, ular o'zlarining bajarilishini topishga intilishadi. Ularning umidlari tsivilizatsiyaning eng qadimgi institutlaridan tashqari yolg'izlikda yashashga mahkum etilmaslikdir. Ular qonun oldida teng qadr-qimmatni so'raydilar. Konstitutsiya ularga bunday huquqni beradi.[134]

Turli xil fikrlar

Bosh sudya Roberts

Uning noroziligida, Bosh sudya Jon Roberts bir jinsli nikoh taqiqlari Konstitutsiyani buzmaganligini ta'kidladi.

Bosh sudya Jon Roberts yozgan a alohida fikr, unga Adliya Skaliya va Tomas qo'shildi. Roberts qabul qildi moddiy sud jarayoni, qaysi tomonidan asosiy huquqlar orqali himoyalangan Amalga oshiriladigan ishlar to'g'risidagi band, lekin ogohlantirilgan asosiy huquqlarni kengaytirish uchun vaqt o'tishi bilan suiiste'mol qilinganligini ogohlantirdi, xususan Dred Skott va Sandford va Lochner va Nyu-York.[135] Robertsning ta'kidlashicha, biron bir oldingi qaror nikohning asosiy tarkibiy qismini o'zgartirmagan, bu bitta erkak va bir ayol o'rtasida bo'lishi kerak; Binobarin, bir jinsli nikohni taqiqlash "Jarayon" bandini buzmagan.[136] Roberts bir jinsli nikoh taqiqlari buzilgan degan tushunchani ham rad etdi maxfiylik huquqi, chunki ular hukumatning bosqini yoki keyingi jazosini o'z ichiga olmagan.[137] Ga murojaat qilish Teng himoya qilish moddasi, Robertsning ta'kidlashicha, bir jinsli nikoh taqiqlari ushbu bandni buzmagan, chunki ular hukumat manfaatlari bilan oqilona bog'liq: nikohning an'anaviy ta'rifini saqlab qolish.[138]

Umuman olganda, Roberts u taklif qilgan nikoh har doim "erkak va ayolning birlashishi" degan "universal ta'rif" ga ega bo'lib, muvaffaqiyatli farzand tarbiyasini ta'minlash uchun paydo bo'lganligini aytdi.[139] Roberts ko'pchilikning fikrini konstitutsiyaviy asosga emas, balki axloqiy e'tiqodga tayanayotgani va tarixga ehtiyotkorlik va e'tibor bermasdan asosiy huquqlarni kengaytirayotgani uchun tanqid qildi.[140] Shuningdek, u ko'pchilikning fikri nikohni qonuniylashtirilgan ko'pxotinlilikni kengaytirish uchun ishlatilishi mumkinligini aytdi.[141] Roberts ko'pchilikni demokratik jarayonni bekor qilgani va sud tizimidan dastlab mo'ljallanmagan tarzda foydalanganligi uchun ta'qib qildi.[142] Robertsning so'zlariga ko'ra, bir jinsli nikoh tarafdorlari o'z taraflari uchun "haqiqiy qabul" ga erisha olmaydilar, chunki munozaralar endi yopilgan.[143] Roberts shuningdek, ko'pchilikning fikri oxir-oqibat diniy erkinlik uchun oqibatlarga olib keladi deb taxmin qildi va sudning tili bir jinsli nikoh muxoliflariga nohaq hujum qilmoqda, deb topdi.[144]

Adolat Scalia

adolat Antonin Skaliya farqli fikrni yozdi, unga Adolat Tomas qo'shildi. Skaliya sud qarori amalda odamlarni "o'zini o'zi boshqarish erkinligini" mahrum etayotganini ta'kidlab, bir jinsli nikoh to'g'risida qattiq munozaralar bo'lib o'tganini va ushbu masalani mamlakat miqyosida hal qilish orqali demokratik jarayonlar asossiz ravishda to'xtatilganligini ta'kidladi.[145] Da'vo qilingan shaxsga murojaat qilish O'n to'rtinchi o'zgartirish Shkalaning ta'kidlashicha, o'n to'rtinchi tuzatish qabul qilingan paytda bir jinsli nikohni taqiqlash konstitutsiyaga zid hisoblanmagan bo'lar edi, bugungi kunda bunday taqiqlar konstitutsiyaga zid emas.[146] U sudning o'n to'rtinchi tuzatish aniq taqiqlamagan qonunchilikni bekor qilish to'g'risidagi qaroriga "asos yo'q" deb da'vo qildi va "hatto ingichka qonun qoplamasi yo'qligi" uchun to'g'ridan-to'g'ri ko'pchilik fikriga hujum qildi.[146] Va nihoyat, Skaliya ushbu yozuvni "aniq fikrlash va hushyor tahlil qilish uchun ushbu Sudning obro'sini pasayishiga" va "intizomiy huquqiy asoslardan tushishiga" aybdor deb topdi. Jon Marshall va Jozef hikoyasi boylik cookiesining sirli aforizmlariga. "[147]

Adolat Tomas

adolat Klarens Tomas rad javobini rad etdi moddiy sud jarayoni.

adolat Klarens Tomas farqli fikrni yozdi, unga Adliya Skali qo'shildi. Tomas moddiy sud jarayoni printsipini rad etdi, u "sudyalarni bu erda ko'pchilik nima qilgan bo'lsa - konstitutsiyaviy sohada umuman roa [m] ni bajarishga da'vat etadi, faqat ushbu hujjat bilan himoya qilinadigan asosiy huquqlarga nisbatan ularning shaxsiy qarashlari asosida. "; in doing so, the judiciary strays from the Constitution's text, subverts the democratic process, and "exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority."[148] Thomas argued that the only liberty that falls under Due Process Clause protection is freedom from "physical restraint".[149] Furthermore, Thomas insisted that "liberty has long been understood as individual freedom dan governmental action, not as a right ga a particular governmental entitlement" such as a marriage license.[150] According to Thomas, the majority's holding also undermines the political process and threatens religious liberty.[151] Lastly, Thomas took issue with the majority's view that marriage advances the dignity of same-sex couples. In his view, government is not capable of bestowing dignity; rather, dignity is a natural right that is innate within every person, a right that cannot be taken away even through slavery and internment camps.[152]

Adolat Alito

adolat Samuel Alito wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas. Qo'ng'iroq qilish Vashington va Glucksberg, in which the Court stated the Due Process Clause protects only rights and liberties that are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition", Alito claimed any "right" to same-sex marriage would not meet this definition; he chided the justices in the majority for going against judicial precedent and long-held tradition.[153] Alito defended the rationale of the states, accepting the premise that same-sex marriage bans serve to promote procreation and the optimal childrearing environment.[154] Alito expressed concern that the majority's opinion would be used to attack the beliefs of those who disagree with same-sex marriage, who "will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools", leading to "bitter and lasting wounds".[155] Expressing concern for judicial abuse, Alito concluded, "Most Americans—understandably—will cheer or lament today's decision because of their views on the issue of same-sex marriage. But all Americans, whatever their thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority's claim of power portends."[156]

Effektlar

Reaksiyalar

Qo'llab-quvvatlash

The oq uy was illuminated in rainbow colors on the evening of the ruling.

James Obergefell, the named plaintiff in Obergefell who sought to put his name on his husband's Ohio death certificate as surviving spouse, said, "Today's ruling from the Supreme Court affirms what millions across the country already know to be true in our hearts: that our love is equal."[157] He expressed his hope that the term gay marriage soon will be a thing of the past and henceforth only be known as marriage.[157] Prezident Barak Obama praised the decision and called it a "victory for America".[158]

Plaintiffs Jimmy Meade (L) and Luke Barlowe (R) celebrate at Lexington Pride Festival, Lexington, Kentucky, on the day after the Obergefell hukm qilish.

Hundreds of companies reacted positively to the Supreme Court decision by temporarily modifying their company logos on social media to include rainbows or other messages of support for the legalization of same-sex marriage.[159] Jubilant supporters went to social media, public rallies, and Mag'rurlik paradlari to celebrate the ruling.[160][161] Media commentators highlighted the above-quoted passage from Kennedy's decision as a key statement countering many of the arguments put forth by same-sex marriage opponents and mirroring similar language in the 1967 decision in Sevgi Virjiniyaga qarshi, which abolished bans on inter-racial marriages, and the 1965 decision in Grisvold va Konnektikut, which affirmed married couples have a right of privacy.[162][163] The paragraph was frequently repeated on social media after the ruling was reported.[164]

In 2015, due to the ruling, Justice Anthony Kennedy and the other justices of the Supreme Court were chosen as Advokat 's People of the Year.[165]

Qarama-qarshilik

Opponents of the decision protest before the steps of the Oliy sud, 2015 yil 26-iyun.

Aksincha, Texas Bosh prokurori Ken Pakton called the Court's decision a "lawless ruling" and pledged free legal defense of state workers who refuse to marry couples on religious grounds.[166] In a tweet, former Governor of Arkansas and then Respublikachilar nomzodi uchun 2016 yilgi prezident saylovi Mayk Xekabi wrote, "This flawed, failed decision is an out-of-control act of unconstitutional judicial tyranny."[167] Austin R. Nimocks, senior counsel for the Ozodlikni himoya qiluvchi ittifoq, a group that opposes same-sex marriage, accused the Court's majority of undermining freedom of speech, saying that "five lawyers took away the voices of more than 300 million Americans to continue to debate the most important social institution in the history of the world. . . . Nobody has the right to say that a mom or a woman or a dad or a man is irrelevant."[157] Ba'zilar, masalan Milliy katolik reestri va Bugungi kunda nasroniylik, raised concerns that there may be conflict between the ruling and diniy erkinlik, echoing the arguments made by the dissenting justices.[168][169][170][171]

On May 4, 2017, Republican Tennesi gubernatori Bill Haslam imzolangan HB 1111 / SB 1085 qonunga muvofiq.[172][173] Hisob-kitobni Inson huquqlari aksiyasi da'vo qilishga urinish sifatida Obergefell va Xodjes.[174]

Muvofiqlik

While the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage throughout the United States, as of June 21, 2017, nine counties in Alabama and Texas still do not issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Those within these counties who wish to marry within the state must travel to another part of the state in order to obtain a license. However, some counties may require at least one person to be a resident of the county in order to receive a marriage license.[175][176]

Alabama counties issuing marriage licenses to all couples (blue) and counties issuing to no one (purple), as of June 21, 2017.
Counties denying licenses to same-sex couples
(as of June 2017)[175]
HolatALTXTotal, U.S.
Refuse to issue any marriage licenses808
Issue licenses to opposite-sex couples only011
Total, by state819
Percent of state population in said counties6.00.0060.09

Alabama: Officials in eight Alabama counties no longer issue any marriage licenses: Autauga, Klark, Kleburne, Kovington, Elmore, Jeneva, Payk va Vashington Grafliklar. This policy is being done in accordance with a state law, which in 1961 was created to preserve racial segregation and made it optional for county clerks to issue marriage licenses. Several have chosen to exercise this option since the Obergefell hukm qilish.[175][177] 2016 yil 6-yanvarda Alabama shtatining bosh sudyasi, Roy Mur, davlat amaldorlariga bir jinsli juftliklarga nikoh litsenziyasini berishni taqiqlovchi qaror chiqardi.[178] The ruling had no effect. 2016 yil may oyida Mur sud qarori uchun davlat sud tergov komissiyasi tomonidan axloq qoidalarini buzganlikda ayblangan,[179] keyinchalik o'sha yilning 30 sentyabrida muddatining qolgan qismida zaxira o'rindig'idan chetlashtirildi.[180]

Texas counties not confirmed to be issuing licenses to same-sex couples (pushti), as of June 20, 2017.

Texas: Yilda Vako, taglik tinchlik adolati who conducts civil marriages refuses to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.[181][182] Additionally, officials of one Texas county, Irion okrugi, issue marriage licenses but will not confirm whether they will issue them to same-sex couples.[175]

Kentukki: Several Kentucky counties and county clerks initially refused to marry same-sex couples, Rowan County Clerk Kim Devis ular orasida. Bunga javoban Kentukki nikoh litsenziyasi shakllarini isloh qildi va okrug kotibi ismini litsenziyalardan olib tashladi. As of June 2016, Chris Hartmann, director of the Kentucky-based Fairness Campaign, said to his knowledge "there are no counties where marriage licenses are being denied" in his state.[183]

U.S. Territories: Gacha Obergefell, Guam already issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples.[184] Hokimi Puerto-Riko announced on June 26, 2015, that, in compliance with Obergefell, same-sex marriage would begin in that territory within fifteen days.[185] Although same-sex couples began marrying in the territory on July 17,[186] the court battle would continue until April 11, 2016.[187][188] On June 29 and June 30 of 2015, the governors of the Shimoliy Mariana orollari va Virgin orollari (respectively) announced that their territories would comply with the ruling.[189][190] Holati same-sex marriage in American Samoa noaniq bo'lib qolmoqda.[191][yangilash kerakmi? ]

Keyingi holatlar

Pavan va Smitga qarshi

Yilda Pavan va Smitga qarshi, the Supreme Court reaffirmed Obergefell and ruled that states may not treat married same-sex couples differently from married opposite-sex couples in issuing tug'ilganlik to'g'risidagi guvohnomalar. Yilda Obergefell, birth certificates were listed among the "governmental rights, benefits, and responsibilities" that typically accompany marriage.[192][193][194] Iqtiboslar Obergefell, the Court reaffirmed that "the Constitution entitles same-sex couples to civil marriage 'on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples.'"[195]

Shuningdek qarang

Adabiyotlar

  1. ^ Obergefell va Xodjes, No. 14-556, slip op. at 23 (U.S. June 26, 2015).
  2. ^ Obergefell va Xodjes, No. 14-556, slip op. at 22–23 (U.S. June 26, 2015) ("The Court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. ... [T]he State laws challenged by Petitioners in these cases are now held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples.").
  3. ^ a b Denniston, Lyle (June 26, 2015). "Opinion Analysis: Marriage Now Open to Same-Sex Couples". SCOTUSblog. Olingan 2 iyul, 2015.
  4. ^ Wolf, Richard (June 24, 2015). "Timeline: Same-Sex Marriage through the Years". USA Today. Olingan 29 may, 2018.
  5. ^ Obergefell, slip op. at 28 ("The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States.").
  6. ^ Obergefell, slip op. at 23–26, 27–28.
  7. ^ Obergefell, slip op. at 7–12, 20–23.
  8. ^ a b Terkel, Amanda; Abbey-Lambertz, Keyt; Conetta, Christine (June 17, 2015). "Meet the Couples Fighting to Make Marriage Equality the Law of the Land". Huffington Post. Olingan 20 oktyabr, 2017.
  9. ^ Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, DeBoer va Snayder, No. 12-CV-10285 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 21, 2014) (complaint filed Jan. 23, 2012); DeBoer, slip op. at 1–4.
  10. ^ Wooledge, Scott (September 8, 2012). "Lesbian Couple with Three Kids Files Federal Court Challenge to Michigan's Gay Marriage Ban". Kundalik kos. Olingan 25 sentyabr, 2015.
  11. ^ Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, DeBoer, No. 12-CV-10285 (amended complaint filed Sept. 7, 2012).
  12. ^ White, Ed (March 7, 2013). "No Immediate Ruling on Michigan's Gay Marriage Ban". The Big Story [AP]. Arxivlandi asl nusxasi 2013 yil 29 oktyabrda. Olingan 19 sentyabr, 2015.
  13. ^ Shuningdek qarang, Case Docket (doc. 50, Jan. 11, 2013).
  14. ^ Tashqi ko'rinishga xabar bering, DeBoer, No. 12-CV-10285 (notice filed Oct. 16, 2013).
  15. ^ Xarris, Endryu M.; Raphael, Steven; Cronin Fisk, Margaret (October 16, 2013). "Michigan Gay Marriage Ban Challenge Gets February Trial". Bloomberg Business. Olingan 19 sentyabr, 2015.
  16. ^ Eckholm, Erik (March 7, 2014). "In Gay Marriage Suit, a Battle Over Research". The New York Times. Olingan 19 sentyabr, 2015.
  17. ^ DeBoer, slip op. 29 da.
  18. ^ Stark, Samantha (June 26, 2015). "In Supreme Court Case, a Couple Not Recognized in Life or Death". The New York Times. Olingan 31 avgust, 2015.
  19. ^ Mcafee, Tierney; Sobieraj Westfall, Sandra (June 26, 2015). "The Man Who Changed America: Jim Obergefell Tells PEOPLE Gay Marriage Ruling Made Him Feel 'Like an Equal American'". Odamlar. Olingan 31 avgust, 2015.
  20. ^ Verified Complaint for Temporary Restraining Order and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Obergefell va Kasich, No. 13-cv-501 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 23, 2013) (complaint filed July 19, 2013). Shuningdek qarang, Justia Docket Report.
  21. ^ a b Geidner, Chris (July 22, 2013). "Ohio Officials Ordered to Recognize Gay Couple's Marriage". BuzzFeed yangiliklari. Olingan 31 avgust, 2015.
  22. ^ Xastings, Debora (2013 yil 15-iyul). "Terminally Ill Ohio Gay Man Gets Dying Wish, Marries Partner after Being Flown to Another State". Nyu-York Daily News. Olingan 21 iyul, 2013.
  23. ^ Tompson, Enn (2013 yil 19-iyul). "Tsinsinnati sudi Ogayo shtatining bir jinsli nikohni taqiqlashiga qarshi chiqdi". TsVinsuati. Olingan 21 iyul, 2013.
  24. ^ Zimmerman, Juli (2013 yil 14-iyul). "To Get Married, They Left Ohio". Cincinnati.com. Olingan 31 avgust, 2015.
  25. ^ Geidner, Chris (March 22, 2015). "Two Years after His Husband's Death, Jim Obergefell Is Still Fighting for the Right to Be Married". BuzzFeed yangiliklari.
  26. ^ Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order at 1, Obergefell, No. 1:13-cv-501 (order filed July 22, 2013).
  27. ^ Geidner, Chris (July 25, 2013). "Ohio Attorney General Has No Plans to Appeal Temporary Restraining Order in Gay Couple's Case". BuzzFeed yangiliklari. Olingan 26 iyul, 2013.
  28. ^ Obergefell, No. 1:13-cv-501 (order extending restraining order ) (order filed Aug. 13, 2013). Shuningdek qarang, Justia Docket Report.
  29. ^ "Gay Ohio Couple Win Extension Recognizing Marriage". Edge Media Network. 2013 yil 13-avgust. Olingan 31 avgust, 2015.
  30. ^ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order Re David Michener, Obergefell, No. 1:13-cv-501 (motion filed Sept. 3, 2013); Amended Verified Complaint for Temporary Restraining Order and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief at 1–5, Obergefell, No. 1:13-cv-501 (amended verified complaint filed Sept. 3, 2013).
  31. ^ Motion to Amend Complaint, Obergefell, No. 1:13-cv-501 (motion filed Sept. 3, 2013); Motion for Temporary Restraining Order Re David Michener, Obergefell, No. 1:13-cv-501 (motion filed Sept. 3, 2013); Amended Verified Complaint for Temporary Restraining Order and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief at 1–5, Obergefell, No. 1:13-cv-501 (amended verified complaint filed Sept. 3, 2013); see, also, Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(1).
  32. ^ Motion to Amend Complaint, Obergefell, No. 1:13-cv-501 (motion filed Sept. 19, 2013); Second Amended Complaint for Temporary Restraining Order and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief at 1, 3, 9–10, Obergefell v. Wymyslo, No. 13-cv-501 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 23, 2013) (second amended complaint filed Sept. 26, 2013); Obergefell, slip op. at 8–9; Justia Docket Report (esp. for Sept. 25, 2013); see, also, Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(1).
  33. ^ a b v "LGBT Rights on the Docket: Obergefell va Xodjes". ACLU: American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio. Olingan 13 sentyabr, 2015.
  34. ^ Obergefell, No. 1:13-cv-501 (order denying motion to dismiss ) (order filed Nov. 1, 2013).
  35. ^ Obergefell v. Wymyslo, No. 1:13-cv-501 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 23, 2013).
  36. ^ Obergefell, slip op. 14 da.
  37. ^ Bzdek, Vincent (December 23, 2013). "Ohio's Ban on Gay Marriage Ruled Unconstitutional in Limited Case". Washington Post. Olingan 31 avgust, 2013.
  38. ^ Complaint for Temporary Restraining Order and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief at 1–10, Genri va Vymislo, No. 1:14-cv-129 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 14, 2014) (complaint filed Feb. 10, 2014); Henry v. Himes, No. 1:14-cv-129, slip op. at 6–10 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 14, 2014).
  39. ^ Myers, Amanda Lee (February 10, 2014). "Couples Sue to Force Ohio's Hand on Gay Marriage". Yahoo! Yangiliklar. Olingan 31 avgust, 2015.
  40. ^ Thompson, Chrissie (April 4, 2014). "Ohio Will Have to Recognize Gay Marriages, Judge Says". USA Today. Olingan 31 avgust, 2015.
  41. ^ Memmott, Mark (April 4, 2014). "Federal Judge Says He'll Require Ohio to Recognize Same-Sex Marriages". Milliy jamoat radiosi (NPR). Olingan 31 avgust, 2015.
  42. ^ a b "Mr. Lance D. Himes [Bio.]". Ogayo shtati Sog'liqni saqlash boshqarmasi. 2014 yil 7 mart. Olingan 30 avgust, 2015.
  43. ^ Henry v. Himes, No. 1:14-cv-129 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 14, 2014).
  44. ^ Hunt, Amber; Thompson, Chrissie (April 14, 2014). "Judge: Ohio Must Recognize Other States' Gay Marriages". USA Today. Olingan 31 avgust, 2015.
  45. ^ Genri, No. 1:14-cv-129 (order granting motion for stay ) (order filed Apr. 16, 2014).
  46. ^ Snow, Justin (April 16, 2014). "Federal Judge Grants Partial Stay in Ohio Marriage-Ban Ruling". Metro haftalik. Olingan 16 aprel, 2014.
  47. ^ "Bourke v. Beshear & Love v. Beshear – Plaintiff Profiles". ACLU. Olingan 5 oktyabr, 2015.
  48. ^ Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief at 2–4, Burke va Beshear, No. 3:13-CV-750-H (W.D. Ky. Feb. 12, 2014) (second amended complaint filed Nov. 1, 2013).
  49. ^ Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief at 1–6, 18, Bourke, No. 3:13-CV-750-H (complaint filed July 26, 2013); see, also, Civil Docket.
  50. ^ Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief at 1–2, 5–10, Bourke, No. 3:13-CV-750-H (amended complaint filed Aug. 16, 2013); see, also, Civil Docket; Oziqlangan. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(1).
  51. ^ Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief at 1–7, 16–17, Bourke, No. 3:13-CV-750-H (second amended complaint filed Nov. 1, 2013); see, also, Civil Docket (nos. 29–31); Oziqlangan. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(1).
  52. ^ Franklin v. Beshear, No. 3:13-CV-51 (E.D. Ky. filed Aug. 16, 2013) (order to change venue ) (order filed Oct. 2, 2013); Bourke, slip op. at 5 n.7; see, also, PlainSite Docket; Oziqlangan. R. Civ. P. 42(a).
  53. ^ Bourke, slip op. at 5 n.7.
  54. ^ Franklin v. Beshear, No. 3:13-CV-946-H (W.D. Ky. dismissed Feb. 12, 2014) (order of dismissal ); see, also, PlainSite Docket.
  55. ^ Bourke, slip op. 2 da.
  56. ^ Motion to Intervene, Burke va Beshear, No. 3:13-CV-750-H (W.D. Ky. Feb. 12, 2014) (motion filed Feb. 14, 2014); Intervening Complaint and Petition for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief at 2–4, Bourke, No. 3:13-CV-750-H (filed in record Feb. 27, 2014); see, also Case Docket.
  57. ^ Bourke, No. 3:13-CV-750-H (order granting motion to intervene ) (order filed Feb. 27, 2014); see, also Case Docket; Oziqlangan. R. Civ. P. 24(b).
  58. ^ Sevgi va Beshear, No. 3:13-CV-750-H (W.D. Ky. July 1, 2014) (order restyling case ) (order filed Feb. 28, 2014); see, also Case Docket; Oziqlangan. R. Civ. P. 42(b).
  59. ^ Sevgi, slip op. 14 da.
  60. ^ Sevgi, slip op. at 19.
  61. ^ Sevgi, slip op. 15 da.
  62. ^ Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief at 1, 5–6, 38, Tanco va Haslam, No. 3:13-cv-01159 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 14, 2014) (complaint filed Oct. 21, 2013); Tanco, slip op. at 4–7.
  63. ^ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Tanco, No. 3:13-cv-01159 (motion filed Nov. 19, 2013); Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Tanco, No. 3:13-cv-01159 (memorandum filed Nov. 19, 2013).
  64. ^ Stipulation of Dismissal of Plaintiffs Kellie Miller and Vanessa DeVillez and Defendant Bill Gibbons, Tanco, No. 3:13-cv-01159 (stipulation filed Mar. 10, 2014).
  65. ^ Tanco, slip op. at 19; see, also, Tanco, No. 3:13-cv-01159 (dastlabki buyruq ) (preliminary injunction filed Mar. 14, 2014).
  66. ^ Memorandum va buyurtma at 7, Tanco, No. 3:13-cv-01159 (memorandum and order filed Mar. 20, 2014).
  67. ^ Obergefell va Xodjes, No. 14-556, slip op. at 26 (U.S. June 26, 2015).
  68. ^ Apellyatsiya shikoyati, Obergefell v. Wymyslo, No. 13-CV-501 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 23, 2013) (notice filed Jan. 16, 2014). Shuningdek qarang, Justia Docket Report.
  69. ^ Defendants' Notice of Appeal, Tanco va Haslam, No. 3:13-cv-01159 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 14, 2014) (notice filed Mar. 18, 2014).
  70. ^ Apellyatsiya shikoyati, Deboer v. Snyder, No. 12-CV-10285 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 21, 2014) (notice filed Mar. 21, 2012).
  71. ^ Qarang Case Docket (items 68 and 92).
  72. ^ Apellyatsiya shikoyati, Henry v. Himes, No. 1:14-cv-129 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 14, 2014) (notice filed May 9, 2014).
  73. ^ Regarding case consolidation, generally, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a).
  74. ^ Obergefell v. Himes, No. 14-3057 (6th Cir. Nov. 6, 2014) (order replacing defendant and changing caption ) (order filed Apr. 15, 2014), konsol. sub nom. DeBoer va Snayder, No. 14-1341 (6th Cir. Nov. 6, 2014).
  75. ^ Kelsak Bourke va Sevgi, qarang Certiorari yozuvi uchun ariza at 11, Burke va Beshear, No. 14-574 (U.S. June 26, 2015) (petition filed Nov. 18, 2014); see, also, SCOTUSblog Bourke Docket; Oziqlangan. R. Civ. P. 42(a).
  76. ^ "State of Ohio: All in This Region". Nikoh tengligi AQSh. Olingan 13 sentyabr, 2015.
  77. ^ "Obergefell va Xodjes (Avval Obergefell v. Himes, Avval Obergefell v. Wymyslo)". Lambda yuridik. 2014 yil 28 aprel. Olingan 13 sentyabr, 2015.
  78. ^ "Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Aug. 6 Hearing FAQ". NCLR: National Center for Lesbian Rights. Olingan 13 sentyabr, 2015.
  79. ^ See, generally, Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a).
  80. ^ "Richard Hodges, MPA [Bio.]". Ogayo shtati Sog'liqni saqlash boshqarmasi. 2014 yil 11-avgust. Arxivlangan asl nusxasi 2015 yil 27 iyunda. Olingan 2 iyul, 2015.
  81. ^ Joint Petition for a Writ of Certiorari at ii–iii, Obergefell va Xodjes, No. 14-556 (U.S. June 26, 2015) (petition filed Nov. 14, 2014); Obergefell, slip op. 1 da.
  82. ^ DeBoer va Snayder, No. 14-1341, slip op. at 14 (6th Cir. Nov. 6, 2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
  83. ^ DeBoer, slip op. at 17.
  84. ^ a b Geidner, Chris (November 6, 2014). "Federal Appeals Court Upholds Four States' Same-Sex Marriage Bans". BuzzFeed yangiliklari. Olingan 6-noyabr, 2014.
  85. ^ DeBoer va Snayder, No. 14-1341, slip op. at 55 (6th Cir. Nov. 6, 2014) (Daughtrey, J., dissenting).
  86. ^ Petition for Writ of Certiorari, DeBoer va Snayder, No. 14-571 (U.S. June 26, 2015) (petition filed Nov. 14, 2014); Joint Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Obergefell va Xodjes, No. 14-556 (U.S. June 26, 2015) (petition filed Nov. 14, 2014) (Adoption S.T.A.R. at iii); Certiorari yozuvi uchun ariza, Tanco va Haslam, No. 14-562 (U.S. June 26, 2015) (petition filed Nov. 14, 2014); see, also SCOTUSblog Tanco Docket.
  87. ^ Snow, Justin (November 14, 2014). "Same-Sex Marriage back before the Supreme Court". Metro haftalik.
  88. ^ Certiorari yozuvi uchun ariza, Burke va Beshear, No. 14-574 (U.S. June 26, 2015) (petition filed Nov. 18, 2014); see, also, SCOTUSblog Bourke Docket.
  89. ^ Petition for Writ of Certiorari at i, DeBoer, No. 14-571 (petition filed Nov. 14, 2014).
  90. ^ Joint Petition for a Writ of Certiorari at i, Obergefell, No. 14-556 (petition filed Nov. 14, 2014).
  91. ^ Certiorari yozuvi uchun ariza at i, Tanco, No. 14-562 (petition filed Nov. 14, 2014).
  92. ^ Certiorari yozuvi uchun ariza at i, Bourke, No. 14-574 (petition filed Nov. 18, 2014).
  93. ^ Buyurtma ro'yxati, 574 U.S. ___ (Jan. 16, 2015) (No. 14-556) (order granting cert.); regarding case consolidation, generally, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a).
  94. ^ Geidner, Chris (January 16, 2015). "Supreme Court Will Hear Four Cases Challenging Same-Sex Marriage Bans". BuzzFeed yangiliklari. Olingan 16 yanvar, 2015.
  95. ^ Denniston, Lyle (January 16, 2015). "Court Will Rule on Same-Sex Marriage". SCOTUSblog. Olingan 16 yanvar, 2015.
  96. ^ Totenberg, Nina (April 28, 2015). "Record Number of Amicus Briefs Filed in Same-Sex-Marriage Cases". Milliy radio. Olingan 27 iyun, 2015.
  97. ^ "Obergefell va Xodjes".. SCOTUSblog. Olingan 27 iyun, 2015.
  98. ^ "Business Won Big, Lost Big At Supreme Court This Term" by Daniel Fisher, Forbes, July 2, 2015. Retrieved January 26, 2019.
  99. ^ Ingraham, Nathan, "Apple, Facebook, Comcast, and hundreds of others ask Supreme Court for nationwide marriage equality", The Verge, March 5, 2015. Retrieved January 26, 2019.
  100. ^ "Morgan Lewis Creates Role for 'Large Impact' Pro Bono Matters", by Lizzy McLellan, Huquqiy razvedka (Law.com), January 9, 2019. Retrieved January 9, 2019.
  101. ^ Singh, Tejinder (April 28, 2015). "'Super-Cuts' from Same-Sex Marriage Arguments". SCOTUSblog.
  102. ^ Gerstein, Josh (April 28, 2015). "8 Most Awkward Moments in the Supreme Court's Gay-Marriage Arguments". Politico.
  103. ^ a b v Sherman, Mark (April 28, 2015). "A Look at the Five Lawyers to Argue Gay Marriage before Supreme Court". Michigan shtatidagi MLive.
  104. ^ Walsh, Mark (April 28, 2015). "A View from the Courtroom, Same-Sex Marriage Edition". SCOTUSblog.
  105. ^ Rosen, Jeffrey (April 29, 2015). "The Supreme Court Gay Marriage Arguments: What the Justices Revealed — Quote by Quote". Yahoo! Yangiliklar.
  106. ^ Johnson, Kevin (February 24, 2015). "Argument Analysis: Review of Consular Visa Decisions for the Twenty-first Century". SCOTUSblog.
  107. ^ Liptak, Adam (April 28, 2015). "Gay Marriage Arguments Divide Supreme Court Justices". The New York Times.
  108. ^ Hurley, Lawrence (April 28, 2015). "U.S. Top Court Divided on Gay Marriage, Kennedy Appears Pivotal". Reuters.
  109. ^ Vogue, Ariane de; Jigarrang, Pamela; Diamond, Jeremy (April 28, 2015). "Supreme Court Justices Skeptical of Redefining Marriage". CNN siyosati.
  110. ^ Vogue, Ariane de (April 27, 2015). "John Roberts' Big Moment: Will He Anger Conservatives Again?". CNN siyosati. Olingan 30 avgust, 2015.
  111. ^ Goodwin, Liz (April 28, 2015). "Justice Roberts Revives an Old Argument That Could Save Gay Marriage". Yahoo! Siyosat. Olingan 30 avgust, 2015.
  112. ^ Koch, Brittany Blackburn (July 17, 2015). "The Effect of Obergefell v. Hodges for Same-Sex Couples". The Milliy qonunchilik sharhi. McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie & Kirkland, PLLC. Olingan 10 oktyabr, 2016.
  113. ^ Schiff Hardin LLP (July 3, 2013). "New Employee Benefits Rules for Some Same-Sex Marriages". Milliy qonunni ko'rib chiqish. Olingan 4-noyabr, 2016.
  114. ^ Roberts, Dan; Siddiqui, Sabrina (June 26, 2015). "Anthony Kennedy: How One Man's Evolution Legalized Marriage for Millions". Guardian. Olingan 27 iyun, 2015.
  115. ^ Cohen, Matt (June 26, 2015). "Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide". DCist. Arxivlandi asl nusxasi 2015 yil 29 iyunda. Olingan 27 avgust, 2015.
  116. ^ Phillips, Amber (June 26, 2015). "John Roberts's Full-Throated Gay Marriage Dissent: Constitution 'Had Nothing to Do with It'". Washington Post. Olingan 27 avgust, 2015.
  117. ^ Obergefell va Xodjes, No. 14-556, slip op. at 1–2 (U.S. June 26, 2015).
  118. ^ Obergefell, slip op. at 10 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
  119. ^ Obergefell, slip op. 11 da.
  120. ^ The dissenting justices framed the issue similarly, but not necessarily using the same language. See the dissenting opinions below.
  121. ^ Obergefell, slip op. at 18 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
  122. ^ Obergefell, slip op. soat 12 da.
  123. ^ Obergefell, slip op. 13 da.
  124. ^ Obergefell, slip op. at 14–16.
  125. ^ Obergefell, slip op. at 16–17.
  126. ^ Obergefell, slip op. at 19–22.
  127. ^ Obergefell, slip op. at 22–23.
  128. ^ Obergefell, slip op. at 27–28.
  129. ^ Obergefell, slip op. at 23–26.
  130. ^ Obergefell, slip op. at 24 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
  131. ^ Obergefell, slip op. at 25–26. The Court invoked Bowers va Xardvik as an exemplum of this principle.
  132. ^ Obergefell, slip op. 26 da.
  133. ^ a b Obergefell, slip op. 27 da.
  134. ^ Obergefell, slip op. at 28.
  135. ^ Obergefell va Xodjes, No. 14-556, slip op. at 10–15 (U.S. June 26, 2015) (Roberts, C.J., dissenting).
  136. ^ Obergefell, slip op. at 15–17 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting).
  137. ^ Obergefell, slip op. at 17–18 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting).
  138. ^ Obergefell, slip op. at 24 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting).
  139. ^ Obergefell, slip op. at 4–5 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting).
  140. ^ Obergefell, slip op. at 19–20 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting).
  141. ^ Obergefell, slip op. at 20–21 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting).
  142. ^ Obergefell, slip op. at 24–26 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting).
  143. ^ Obergefell, slip op. at 26–27 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting).
  144. ^ Obergefell, slip op. at 27–29 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting).
  145. ^ Obergefell va Xodjes, No. 14-556, slip op. at 2 (U.S. June 26, 2015) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
  146. ^ a b Obergefell, slip op. at 4 (Scalia, J., dissenting).
  147. ^ Obergefell, slip op. at 9, 8 n.22 (Scalia, J., dissenting).
  148. ^ Obergefell va Xodjes, No. 14-556, slip op. at 2–3 (U.S. June 26, 2015) (Thomas, J., dissenting) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
  149. ^ Obergefell, slip op. at 6–7 (Thomas, J., dissenting).
  150. ^ Obergefell, slip op. at 7 (Thomas, J., dissenting).
  151. ^ Obergefell, slip op. at 13–14, 14–16 (Thomas, J., dissenting).
  152. ^ Obergefell, slip op. at 16–17 (Thomas, J., dissenting).
  153. ^ Obergefell va Xodjes, No. 14-556, slip op. at 2–3 (U.S. June 26, 2015) (Alito, J., dissenting) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
  154. ^ Obergefell, slip op. at 3–6 (Alito, J., dissenting).
  155. ^ Obergefell, slip op. at 6–7 (Alito, J., dissenting).
  156. ^ Obergefell, slip op. at 8 (Alito, J., dissenting).
  157. ^ a b v Barnes, Robert (June 26, 2015). "Supreme Court Rules Gay Couples Nationwide Have a Right to Marry". Washington Post. Olingan 27 iyun, 2015.
  158. ^ Reilly, Mollie (June 26, 2015). "Obama Praises Supreme Court's Decision to Legalize Gay Marriage Nationwide". Huffington Post.
  159. ^ Kim, Susanna; Valiente, Alexa (June 26, 2015). "The Best Company Responses to Same-Sex Marriage Decision". ABC News. Olingan 5 sentyabr, 2015.
  160. ^ Sarkar, Monika (2015 yil 28-iyun). "Gey-mag'rurlik: bu hafta oxirida dunyo qanday qilib kamalakka aylandi". CNN (London, Buyuk Britaniya). Olingan 1 iyul, 2015.
  161. ^ Flegengeymer, Mett; Yi, Vivian (2015 yil 28-iyun). "Gay-g'urur paradlaridagi quvonchli qatnashchilar Oliy sud qarorini nishonlamoqda". The New York Times. ISSN  0362-4331. Olingan 30 iyun, 2015.
  162. ^ Ehrenfreund, Maks (2015 yil 26-iyun). "Gey nikohni qo'llab-quvvatlovchilar hech qachon unutmaydigan sevgiga oid bitta Oliy sud xatboshisi". Washington Post. Olingan 2 iyul, 2015.
  163. ^ Taub, Amanda (2015 yil 26-iyun). "Nima uchun barcha amerikaliklar uchun nikoh tengligi muhim, bitta kuchli xatboshida tushuntirilgan". Vox. Olingan 2 iyul, 2015.
  164. ^ Armstrong, Jeyms (2015 yil 26-iyun). "Bir jinsli nikoh to'g'risidagi qarorning yakuniy xatboshisi virusga aylandi". Global yangiliklar. Olingan 2 iyul, 2015.
  165. ^ Stern, Mark Jozef (2015 yil 5-noyabr). "Yil odamlari: Entoni va Supremes". Advocate.com. Olingan 6-noyabr, 2015.
  166. ^ "AQSh geylari nikohi: Texas hukmronlikka qarshi turmoqda". BBC yangiliklari. 2015 yil 29 iyun. Olingan 30 iyun, 2015.
  167. ^ Zurcher, Entoni (2015 yil 26-iyun). "AQShdagi geylar nikohi: hukmronlikka munosabat". BBC yangiliklari. Olingan 30 iyun, 2015.
  168. ^ Beyli, Sara Pulliam (2015 yil 26-iyun). "Mana Oliy sudning geylar nikohi to'g'risidagi qaroridan diniy erkinlikka oid asosiy parchalar". Washington Post.
  169. ^ Green, Emma (2015 yil 26-iyun). "AQSh Oliy sudining bir xil jinsdagi va nikohdagi qarori diniy erkinlikka qanday ta'sir qiladi?". Atlantika.
  170. ^ Kaspino, Maykl (26.06.2015). "Oliy sudning nikoh qarori diniy shaxslarni himoya qiladimi?". Milliy katolik reestri.
  171. ^ Branaugh, Matt; Ogles, Samuel (2015 yil 26-iyun). "Cherkovlar va ruhoniylar bir jinsdagi nikoh hukmidan nimalarga e'tibor berishlari kerak". Cherkov qonuni va soliq. Bugungi kunda nasroniylik. Arxivlandi asl nusxasi 2019 yil 10 oktyabrda. Olingan 28 iyun, 2015.
  172. ^ Brant, Jozef (2017 yil 5-may). "Haslam LGBTni yo'q qilish to'g'risidagi qonunni imzoladi". Nashvill haqida. Arxivlandi asl nusxasi 2017 yil 4 oktyabrda. Olingan 6 may, 2017.
  173. ^ Vetston, Tayler (2017 yil 5-may). "Gubernator Bill Haslam" tabiiy ma'noda "qonun loyihasini imzoladi". Knoxville News Sentinel. Olingan 6 may, 2017.
  174. ^ "Tennesi shtatidagi LGBTQga qarshi qonun loyihalari Oliy sudning nikoh tengligi to'g'risidagi qarorini buzishga urinish". Inson huquqlari aksiyasi. 2017 yil 26 aprel. Olingan 6 may, 2017.
  175. ^ a b v d Ballotpedia mahalliy stol xodimlari (2017 yil 26-iyun). "Mahalliy hukumatning Obergefell va Xodjesga munosabati". Ballotpedia.org. Olingan 10 mart, 2018.
  176. ^ Ammann, Fil (29.06.2017). "Ikki yil o'tgach, Alabamaning 7 viloyati bir jinsli va boshqa juftliklarga nikoh litsenziyasini bermayapti". Alabama bugun. Olingan 10 mart, 2018.
  177. ^ Associated Press xodimlari (2015 yil 3 oktyabr). "Alabama sudyalari gey nikohidan qochish uchun segregatsiya davri qonunidan foydalanadilar". AL.com. Olingan 18 sentyabr, 2016.
  178. ^ Uilyams, Pit (2016 yil 6-yanvar). "Alabama shtati sudyasi geylar nikohiga chek qo'yishni buyurdi". NBC News. Olingan 10 mart, 2018.
  179. ^ O'Brayen, Brendan (2016 yil 7-may). "Alabamaning eng yaxshi hakami gey-nikoh tartibi bo'yicha axloqiy ayblovlarni tan oldi". Reuters. Olingan 10 mart, 2018.
  180. ^ Folk, Kent (2016 yil 30 sentyabr). "Alabama Oliy sudi raisi Roy Mur muddatidan chetlashtirildi". AL.com. Olingan 10 mart, 2018.
  181. ^ JB Smit, Vakoda bir jinsli juftliklar uchun sud binosida to'ylar o'tkazilmagan, Oliy sud qaroridan 2 yil o'tgach, Waco Tribune-Herald (2017 yil 24-iyun).
  182. ^ Tommi Uiterspun, Vako sudyasining bir jinsli to'ylarni boshqarishi to'g'risidagi da'vosi Travis okrugiga ko'chib o'tdi, Waco Tribune-Jerald (2020 yil 25-iyun).
  183. ^ Jonson, Kris (2016 yil 22-iyun). "Nikoh hukmidan bir yil o'tib, bo'ysunmaslik cho'ntaklari qolmoqda". Vashington Blade. Olingan 17 iyul, 2016.
  184. ^ Associated Press (2015 yil 5-iyun). "Guam bir jinsli nikohni tan olgan birinchi AQSh hududiga aylandi". Guardian haftaligi. Olingan 27 may, 2018.
  185. ^ "Puerto-Riko geylarning nikohiga ruxsat berish to'g'risidagi qonunlarni o'zgartirdi". Karib dengizi 360. 2015 yil 29 iyun. Olingan 28 may, 2018.
  186. ^ Lavers, Maykl K. (2015 yil 18-iyul). "Puerto-Rikodagi da'vogarlar nikoh ishi bo'yicha turmushga chiqmoqdalar". Vashington Blade. Olingan 28 may, 2018.
  187. ^ Kobl, Kristofer (2016 yil 13 aprel). "Birinchi tutashuv Puerto-Riko tomonidan geylarning nikoh taqiqlanishiga eshikni urdi". FindLaw. Olingan 28 may, 2018.
  188. ^ Konde-Vidal va Gartsiya-Padilya qarshi, No 14-1253 (D.P.R. 2016 yil 11-aprel).
  189. ^ Pinaroc, Joel (2015 yil 29-iyun). "Inos AG, merlar bilan bir jinsdagi hukmlar bo'yicha maslahatlarni boshlash uchun". Saipan Tribune. Olingan 27 may, 2018.
  190. ^ Lavers, Maykl K. (2015 yil 10-iyul). "Virgin orollari gubernatori nikoh to'g'risidagi buyruqni imzoladi". Vashington Blade. Olingan 27 may, 2018.
  191. ^ Boren, Zakari Devies (2015 yil 10-iyul). "Bir jinsli nikoh: Amerika Samoasi AQShda tarixiy Oliy sud qarori amal qilmaydigan yagona hudud bo'lishi mumkin". Mustaqil. Olingan 27 may, 2018.
  192. ^ Gryboski, Maykl (2017 yil 26-iyun). "Oliy sud shtatlarga bir jinsli ota-onalarni tug'ilganlik to'g'risidagi guvohnomalar ro'yxatiga kiritishni buyurdi; Gorsuch dississiyalari". Xristian posti. Olingan 26 iyun, 2017.
  193. ^ Liptak, Adam (26.06.2017). "Tug'ilganlik to'g'risidagi guvohnomada teng huquqli gey juftliklar, odil sudlov qoidasi". The New York Times. Olingan 26 iyun, 2017.
  194. ^ Lovelace, Rayan (2017 yil 26-iyun). "Oliy sud Arkanzas shtatidagi tug'ilganlik to'g'risidagi guvohnoma to'g'risidagi qonunni bir jinsli nikohni legallashtirishdan keyin konstitutsiyaga zid deb topdi". Vashington imtihonchisi. Olingan 26 iyun, 2017.
  195. ^ Pavan va Smitga qarshi, № 16–992, slip op. soat 1 da (AQSh 26.06.2017 y.) (iqtibos qoldirilgan).

Qo'shimcha o'qish

  • Ketkart, Kevin M. va Lesli J. Gabel-Bret, nashrlar. Sevgi bizni birlashtiradi: Amerikada turmush qurish erkinligini qo'lga kiritish. Nyu-York: Nyu-Press, 2016 yil. ISBN  978-1-59558-550-9.
  • Cenziper, Debbie va Jim Obergefell. Sevgi g'alaba qozonadi: Nikoh tengligi uchun muhim voqea bilan kurashgan oshiqlar va huquqshunoslar. Nyu-York: Uilyam Morrou, 2016 yil. ISBN  978-0-06-245608-3.
  • Frank, Nataniel. Uyg'onish: Gey va lesbiyanlar qanday qilib Amerikaga nikoh tengligini keltirdilar. Kembrij, MA: Garvard University Press-ning Belknap Press, 2017 y. ISBN  978-0674737228.
  • Lesli, Kristofer R. "Tarixdan norozi bo'lish: soxta rivoyatlar Obergefell Qarama-qarshi fikrlar. " Indiana Law Journal 92, yo'q. 3 (2017): 1007-57.
  • Tribe, Laurence H. "Teng qadr-qimmat: uning nomini gapirish." Garvard huquqshunoslik forumi 129, yo'q. 1 (2015): 16-32.
  • Yoshino, Kenji. "Ozodlikning yangi tug'ilishi ?: Obergefell va Xodjes." Garvard qonuni sharhi 129, yo'q. 1 (2015): 147-79.

Tashqi havolalar

  • Da'vogarning rasmlari: