Sentences with phrase «marriage act in cases»

On Feb. 23, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Obama administration would no longer defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act in cases pending in federal court.

Not exact matches

But Podesta and his candidate want to force a religious order of Catholic women to cooperate in the provision of contraceptives and abortifacients; they want to compel small businesses to cater to same - sex marriage ceremonies; and they want physicians to refer troubled patients for «transgender» treatment — all against the Catholic understanding of the right to act on one's conscience (in these cases, one's rightly formed conscience).

The other is the Windsor case — discussed by Carl Scott earlier — in which the majority opinion not only sets aside part of the Defense of Marriage Act passed with overwhelming support in 1996, but also dismisses and disparages the motives of those who voted for it.

In March, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two appeals cases related to same - sex marriage - California's Proposition 8, which bans same - sex marriage and the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal benefits to same - sex coupleIn March, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two appeals cases related to same - sex marriage - California's Proposition 8, which bans same - sex marriage and the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal benefits to same - sex couplein two appeals cases related to same - sex marriage - California's Proposition 8, which bans same - sex marriage and the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal benefits to same - sex marriage - California's Proposition 8, which bans same - sex marriage and the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal benefits to same - sex marriage and the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal benefits to same - sex Marriage Act, which denies federal benefits to same - sex couples.

In Gall's case, this juxtaposition not only reduces philosophy and theology to mere «bluster,» thereby liberating us to act without thinking seriously; it suggests that none of the consequences that follow from, for example, the codification of same - sex marriage — the redefinition of kinship, the irrevocable technologizing of human «reproduction,» further expansion of the «new eugenics,» deliberate creation of three - parent households, and least of all, the fate of children conceived in this brave new world — even provoke questions of human import worth thinking seriously abouIn Gall's case, this juxtaposition not only reduces philosophy and theology to mere «bluster,» thereby liberating us to act without thinking seriously; it suggests that none of the consequences that follow from, for example, the codification of same - sex marriage — the redefinition of kinship, the irrevocable technologizing of human «reproduction,» further expansion of the «new eugenics,» deliberate creation of three - parent households, and least of all, the fate of children conceived in this brave new world — even provoke questions of human import worth thinking seriously abouin this brave new world — even provoke questions of human import worth thinking seriously about.

Tomorrow and Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in two cases regarding same - sex marriage... one concerning California's Proposition 8 and the other the Defense of Marrimarriage... one concerning California's Proposition 8 and the other the Defense of MarriageMarriage Act.

The court voted to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act and remand the decision of the Ninth Circuit in the Proposition 8 case, holding that California's Proposition 8 defenders didn't have standing.

Jacob and Moses both act in a way quite out of the ordinary, and by such action win the offer of hospitality which ultimately leads to marriage in each case.

This is not the case outside of marriage where the act is in its very nature gravely disordered.

Hanna joins former Utah governor and presidential candidate Jon Huntsman, HP CEO Meg Whitman and ex-Vice President Dick Cheney in signing the amicus, which is being filed with the Supreme Court as justices prepare to take on several court cases challenging same - sex marriage laws, including the controversial Proposition 8 measure in California and the federal Defense of Marrimarriage laws, including the controversial Proposition 8 measure in California and the federal Defense of MarriageMarriage Act.

The Supreme Court this week heard two cases that could decide marriage rights for gay couples — one challenging Prop 8 in California and, today, another challenging the Defense of Marrimarriage rights for gay couples — one challenging Prop 8 in California and, today, another challenging the Defense of MarriageMarriage Act.

RIP Edith Windsor, the gay - rights activist whose landmark U.S. Supreme Court case struck down the Defense of Marriage Act in 2013 and granted same - sex married couples federal recognition for the first time and rights to myriad federal benefits, who died today in Manhattan at the age of 88.

«From the Stonewall Riots 44 years ago this week, to the passage of marriage equality in New York, to today's decision to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act that originated from a case brought by a New York resident, this state has been at the forefront of this movementmarriage equality in New York, to today's decision to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act that originated from a case brought by a New York resident, this state has been at the forefront of this movementMarriage Act that originated from a case brought by a New York resident, this state has been at the forefront of this movement.»

The court held that the case is an abuse of the court process in view of the earlier judgment of the court in 2002 which upheld the sanctity of the rights of the Minister to issue licences to places of worship to conduct marriages, and the Registrar under the Marriage Act to register marriages.

There is so much confusion in the world about what marriage is, and why men and women act the way they do, and what one should do in this case or that.

Usually, dating in some cases acts as precursor to marriage.

Public Act 100 - 0422, effective Jan. 1, 2018, amends the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act to empower courts to create joint responsibility agreements (similar to shared custody) in cases where a couple is fighting over custody of an animal.

Thus, said the judge, and by reference to White v White [2001] 1 AC 596, [2001] 1 All ER 1, «each party has contributed equally to the marriage» But for the séparation de biens marital property agreement, the judge took the view that he was «satisfied that, applying s 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973), giving first consideration to the welfare while minors of the three minor children and applying the checklist in s 25 (2), this would undoubtedly be a case for equal division of the assets».

This is also the case in respect of domestic violence or of exclusion orders (mercifully, the former sop to The Daily Mail and assorted Tory MPs in the Family Law Act 1996, s 41 (which said that if a couple were not married then «the court [should] have regard to the fact that they have not given each other the commitment involved in marriage») has been repealed).

However, the Act preserved the possibility of non-nationals marrying in the Church of England on the authority of a special licence granted by the Archbishop of Canterbury, which would be necessary in any case to permit a marriage to go ahead in St George's Chapel, which is a royal peculiar rather than a parish church.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent in United States v. Windsor, the case striking down the Defense of Marriage Act and upholding same - sex marriage, probably did not come as much of a surprise to legal obMarriage Act and upholding same - sex marriage, probably did not come as much of a surprise to legal obmarriage, probably did not come as much of a surprise to legal observers.

It has been abolished in England and, according to the Canadian Encylopedic Digest, the western Canadian provinces (e.g., see s. 3 of Manitoba's Equality of Status Act, C.C.S.M., c. E130), but I suspect if not formally abolished in the other Canadian jurisdictions that it is not highly used since, although there is a category / link for it in the online Canadian Abridgment under Family Law — Miscellaneous Causes of Action — Jactitation of Marriage, there are no cases under that category...

In Halpern the Hyde v Hyde common law definition of marriage was reformulated, while in Re Marriage Cases ss 300 and 308.5 of the California Family Code (resembling Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) s 11 (c) in their effect) were struck dowIn Halpern the Hyde v Hyde common law definition of marriage was reformulated, while in Re Marriage Cases ss 300 and 308.5 of the California Family Code (resembling Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) s 11 (c) in their effect) were strumarriage was reformulated, while in Re Marriage Cases ss 300 and 308.5 of the California Family Code (resembling Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) s 11 (c) in their effect) were struck dowin Re Marriage Cases ss 300 and 308.5 of the California Family Code (resembling Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) s 11 (c) in their effect) were struMarriage Cases ss 300 and 308.5 of the California Family Code (resembling Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) s 11 (c) in their effect) were struck dowin their effect) were struck down.

Mary L. Bonauto, the civil rights lawyer for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders who was lead counsel in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health — the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case in 2003 that legalized same - sex marriage in the United States for the first time — said the suit asks the court to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act because it targets gays and lesbians for discrimmarriage in the United States for the first time — said the suit asks the court to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act because it targets gays and lesbians for discrimMarriage Act because it targets gays and lesbians for discrimination.

The recent film Loving is about the case in which Richard Loving and Mildred Jeter, who resided in Caroline County, Virginia, married in the District of Columbia and resided in Virginia in violation of that state's Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which forbade marriage between a white person and a colored person (apparently «colored» included everyone not considered white).

In that specific case, James Knight, a dentist, fired his dental assistant of ten years, Melissa Nelson, solely on the basis that he had become attracted to her and she had become a threat to his marriage, as he thought he may one day act on his impulses and be unfaithful to his wife (Nelson v. Knight, No. 11 - 1857).

Harnett, principal of Aaron B. Harnett Criminal Defence Lawyer, acted for the accused in the case, who faced trial in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for two counts of sexual assault against his ex-wife, which she alleged occurred during their marriage.

The question presented in this case was whether Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal recognition of same - sex marriages that are recognized under state law, violated the Equal Protection Clause.

In cases of marriages that are five years or less, a court may award a spouse an amount that is more or less than half the difference between the net family properties, if the court is of the opinion that equalizing the net family properties would be unconscionable (Family Law Act, subsection 5 (6)(e)-RRB-.

I brought up the Civil Marriage Act because the issue of policy in the conflict of laws seems to be extremely relevant in this case.

In the case of P. (S.E.) v. P. (D.D.) the court defined adultery as intimate sexual activity outside of marriage, regardless of the specific nature of the sexual act performed.

was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the «Racial Integrity Act of 1924», unconstitutional, thereby ending all race - based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.

In re Marriage of Ciganovich, supra, 61 Cal.App.3 d 289, a post-Family Law Act case, cites the predecessor of section 7501 as support for the «general rule [that] a parent having child custody is entitled to change residence [over the other parent's objection] unless the move is detrimental to the child.

(3) A parent who desires to file a legal action against a court - appointed psychologist who has acted in good faith in developing a parenting plan recommendation must petition the judge who presided over the dissolution of marriage, case of domestic violence, or paternity matter involving the relationship of a child and a parent, including time - sharing of children, to appoint another psychologist.

(1) A psychologist who has been appointed by the court to develop a parenting plan recommendation in a dissolution of marriage, a case of domestic violence, or a paternity matter involving the relationship of a child and a parent, including time - sharing of children, is presumed to be acting in good faith if the psychologist's recommendation has been reached under standards that a reasonable psychologist would use to develop a parenting plan recommendation.