Search for: "MARRIAGE OF LAWRENCE"
Results 441 - 460
of 894
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Oct 2022, 6:30 am
“The exercise of the rights at issue in Griswold, Eisenstadt, Lawrence, and Obergefell does not destroy a “potential life,” but an abortion has that effect” (slip op. 218) So the reason that the right to abortion can be overruled is that it harms a third party (the fetus). [read post]
24 May 2022, 7:42 am
I simply find our culture’s devaluation of marriage—and the younger generations’ increasing belief that stable marriage is unattainable—to be sad.The post Fornicating (even baby-making) does not turn jointly titled property into “marital property” first appeared on Gregory S. [read post]
25 May 2012, 2:00 pm
Her ruling “set out the reasons why the legal arguments for a federal statute prohibiting same-sex marriage have become obsolete” and referenced the decision in Lawrence v. [read post]
10 Jul 2008, 2:16 pm
And if we were to compare their impact, can we really say that Lawrence v. [read post]
7 Feb 2012, 10:47 am
UPDATE: Based on a quick skim, Reinhardt decided that the Supreme Court wasn’t ready yet to embrace a full right to same-sex marriage, and that it was wiser to offer AMK a narrow rationale based on Romer rather than a broad rationale based on Lawrence or Loving. [read post]
5 Jul 2022, 9:01 pm
These were informal marriages—no witness needed; no marriage license—that were perfectly legal in many states. [read post]
23 Jun 2014, 9:01 pm
” Vanderbilt’s father made a huge fuss, and the marriage did go sour. [read post]
14 May 2012, 4:04 pm
By contrast, in her concurrence in Lawrence v. [read post]
5 Apr 2020, 9:24 am
If it offends autonomy and dignity to prohibit a marriage, it offends autonomy and dignity to preserve a marriage, against the will of the married. [read post]
30 Nov 2007, 1:31 am
That is true even though the swing vote would be the author of Lawrence v. [read post]
26 Jun 2013, 12:37 pm
Or perhaps if enough states recognize same-sex marriage we will see the “emerging awareness” rationale of Lawrence v. [read post]
13 Dec 2013, 10:30 pm
The phrase also violates Due Process under Lawrence because it violates the principle of “consensual sexual privacy,” and that it is also void for vagueness. [read post]
9 May 2022, 2:30 pm
If and when the legal challenges to Obergefell and Lawrence come, we will cite those lines in Dobbs and our side will win in the lower federal courts. [read post]
6 Oct 2016, 2:33 pm
YOUNG and LAWRENCE E. [read post]
2 Jul 2020, 6:31 am
But they did say this about marriage. [read post]
6 Aug 2010, 3:41 am
The same-sex marriage cases cannot be concealed by this smokescreen. [read post]
27 Feb 2007, 5:20 am
In Lawrence v. [read post]
13 Aug 2017, 6:30 am
Within the pages of The Nation, Stephen Cohen, Victor Navasky, and Patrick Lawrence have made the case that Americans’ “McCarthyite” paranoia is pushing the country closer and closer to a dangerous and unnecessary confrontation with Russia. [read post]
25 Jan 2013, 9:15 pm
-- just not within "TEC") Mark Lawrence. [read post]
23 May 2016, 9:01 pm
The absurdity of this argument was on full display in the early fight for marriage equality. [read post]
