Presentation

Shermaine PerryDr. Angela Smith

Constitutional and Administrative Law10 June 2012

The Pursuit of Happiness in the 21st Century

The Declaration of Independence enshrines three basic rights:

“the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Let’s take a closer look

Summary Perspective

Defense of Marriage Act (1996)

General Issue: MARRIAGE

Specific Issue: SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

“Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.”

–Abraham Lincoln

Summary Perspective (cont)

Same-Sex Marriage…legal or illegal?

Advocates state that it aims to level the playing field in which individuals can legally marry despite biological sex or gender identity.

DOMA The Defense of Marriage Act (1996) was signed into law by

President Bill Clinton.1. Federal district judge in New York rules DOMA as unconstitutional.

This ruling follows a string of others striking down the law in a federal court of appeals, two federal district courts, and a bankruptcy court.

2. The Obama Administration does not defend this law This administrator advocates tolerance and openly support gay rights as of 2011.

3. DOMA meets the simplest form of constitutionality. Although under the “rational basis test” this statute as many others are upheld.

4. Conservatives support the DOMA maintain that marriage is between a traditional male-female couple. The GOP continues to urge the court to uphold it based on its merits.

5. Federal appeal courts rules DOMA as unconstitutional This is true for a number of states including: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, Maine

New Hampshire, California, New York, and others.

Major Court Cases

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Perez v. Sharp (1948)

Loving v. Virginia (1967)

Plessy v. FergusonFACTS

Plessy (7/8’s Caucasian descent and 1/8 African American descent) bought a first class ticket and boarded a “whites-only” railcar.

Once confronted from staff, Plessy was removed from the railcar; subsequently charged for violating the Separate Car Act and remanded for trial.

After being convicted, Plessy filed an appeal citing violations of his 13th and 14th Amendment rights.

ISSUES Is there an unjust implication of race inferiority? Violations of 13th and 14th Amendment rights, as well as Equal

Protection under the law

RULE Landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision of separate but equal.

Perez v. SharpFACTS

Andrea Perez (Hispanic female) and Sylvester Davis (African American male) applied for marriage license to join together as husband and wife. The County Clerk refused to issue the license citing California Civil Code Section 60. Perez filed suit shortly after.

ISSUES Do these parties have the right to get married? Violations of 14th Amendment rights, as well as Equal Protection

under the law. Did the state infringe upon Perez’s right to participate in a religious

sacrament?

RULE The statute was struck down. The Court ruled that the state cannot

meddle among the parties in marriage in prejudice. The court held that marriage is a fundamental right.

Loving v. Virginia FACTS

Mildred Jeter and Richard Perry Loving eloped across state lines to D.C. only to face criminal charges upon their return to Virginia. Loving was sentenced by the State to one year imprisonment, with the opinion to suspend sentencing if they agree to leave the state.

ISSUES Does this statute discriminate unjustly? Does the act of marriage itself warrant punishment? Is this direct contradiction to “the pursuit of happiness” guaranteed by the

Constitution? Is there a violation of the due process clause and the equal protection

clause? RULE

The State Court upheld the statute as it promotes “racial integrity.” The Supreme Court struck down the “Racial Integrity Act of 1924,” as

unlawful, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the U.S.

Legal Ramifications

Negative Consequences for your Actions

FINESCONTEMPT

IMPRISONMENTCASE DISMISSAL

LOSS OF BENEFITS

Legal Ramifications

Positive Consequences for your Actions

POLICY REFORM

Influence and Power

More Influence + More Power + Media = ability to affect policy reform

Knowledge +Awareness = More Influence/ More Power

Weighing the Statute

PROS CONS

PROTECTING TRADITIONAL VIEWS BURDEN ON BUSINESS

UPLIFTS THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE WASTES RESOURCES/MONEY

UPLIFTS CHRISTIAN PRINICIPLES DISRESPECTS STATE’S RIGHTS

PROTECTS THE GOVERNMENT ENTITLEMENT SYSTEM

M INIMIZES EQUAL RIGHTS

SAVES TIME/MONEY FORCES LAWMAKERS TO DISCRIMINATE

SERVES AS A GUIDE FOR STATE LAWS DIMINISHES SELF-WORTH OF AFFECTED PEOPLE

ENCOURAGES INTOLERANCE

Pros

Let’s examine why many avidly defend this statute. I can attest this defense to staunch conservative and deeply religious views.

Cons

These advocates for reform hold fast to the words of Abraham Lincoln. “Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.

T H E E N D !!!

References

Beyond Analogy: Perez v. Sharp, Antimiscegenation Law, and the Fight for Same-Sex Marriage by Robin Lenhardt :: SSRN. (n.d.). Going to search. Retrieved June 8, 2012, from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1697630

Biskupic, J. (2010, July 14). Gay-marriage cases inch closer to Supreme Court. Arizona Local News - Phoenix Arizona News - Phoenix Breaking News - azcentral.com. Retrieved June 12, 2012, from http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/07/14/20100714gaymarriage0713.html

Chow, A. (2012, January 4). New Gay Rights Laws Take Effect in 2012 - Civil Rights - Law and Daily Life. FindLaw Blogs. Retrieved June 8, 2012, from http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2012/01/new-gay-rights-laws-take-effect-in-2012.html

Daft, R. L., & Lane, P. G. (2011). The Leadership Experience (2010 Custom ed.). Mason, Ohio: Thomson/South-Western.

Defense of Marriage Act (1996; 104th Congress H.R. 3396) - GovTrack.us. (1996, May 7). GovTrack.us: Tracking the U.S. Congress. Retrieved June 8, 2012, from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/104/hr3396

Define miscegenation | Dictionary and Thesaurus. (n.d.). Define miscegenation | Dictionary and Thesaurus. Retrieved June 8, 2012, from http://miscegenation.askdefine.com/

Defining Marriage: Defense of Marriage Acts and Same-Sex Marriage Laws. (2012, March 1). NCSL Home. Retrieved June 8, 2012, from http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/human-services/same-sex-marriage-overview.aspx

References (cont)Ducat, C. R., & Chase, H. W. (2004). Constitutional Interpretation (8th ed.). Belmont, Calif:

Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Loving v. Virginia | Casebriefs. (n.d.). Law Cases & Case Briefs for Students. Retrieved June 8, 2012, from http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-stone/equality-and-the-constitution/loving-v-virginia-4/

Mount, S. (2010, June 5). Constitutional Topic: Marriage - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net. Index Page - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net. Retrieved June 8, 2012, from http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_marr.html

Obama: DOMA Unconstitutional, DOJ Should Stop Defending In Court. (2011, February 23). Breaking News and Opinion on The Huffington Post. Retrieved June 12, 2012, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/23/obama-doma-unconstitutional_n_827134.html

Szypszak, C. (2011). Understanding Law for Public Administration. Sudbury, Mass.: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

case, i. d. (n.d.). Reference for Perez v. Sharp - Search.com. Metasearch Search Engine - Search.com. Retrieved June 8, 2012, from http://www.search.com/reference/Perez_v._Sharp