A challenge to the validity of a State constitutional amendment seeking to ban same-sex marriage based on the Fourteenth Amendment did in fact meet with initial success. Retrieved September 6, May 18, January 10, The analytical framework used for exploring these factors in this book is neo-institutio nalism.
It can be seen that the issue in New Zealand is shorn of any constitutional implications.
Same-sex marriage banned prior to federal court decision. It is nevertheless worth considering the terms of the same proposed amendment. Not surprisingly, there is much less potential for courts to play a meaningful role and much greater justification for such courts to affirm that the issue must be resolved by the legislature and not the courts.
The high court ruled that same-sex couples have the right to marry in all 50 states. The potential clash with public opinion seems to be a necessary and inevitable price to pay for the protection of the rights of unpopular minorities.
Retrieved May 27,
The Washington Post. There was, in fact, a chance that the provisions were so worded as to go further and also ban civil unions even if they were not called marriages. That instrument is a statutory, and not a constitutional, Bill of Rights and therefore only enjoys the status of an ordinary statute.
Strong reliance was also placed on the application in these cases of the highly deferential rational basis of review. It was held on appeal that the State amendment was rationally related to legitimate State interests and, therefore, did not violate that clause.
Download as PDF Printable version.
This culminated in the enactment of Dominion legislation making it possible to enter into and have recognised same-sex marriages even if that enactment met with some opposition in the Canadian Parliament. The analytical framework used for exploring these factors in this book is neo-institutio nalism.
Section of the Commonwealth Constitution states:.