Search for: "In Re Marriage of Long"
Results 101 - 120
of 3,471
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Jun 2019, 4:00 am
If you’re curious, let me tell you the story. [read post]
9 Jun 2014, 4:28 am
Judge Crabb wrote, [I]f the state is going to deprive an entire class of citizens of a right as fundamental as marriage, then it must do more than say “this is the way it has always been” or “we’re not ready yet. [read post]
17 May 2008, 4:06 pm
The recent California same-sex marriage case, In re Marriage Cases, 2008 WL 2051892, has drawn a lot of coverage primarily on account of its consequences: same-sex marriage is coming to California, and unless the voters overturn the result by referendum, which is doubtful, it is there to stay. [read post]
11 Dec 2007, 5:01 am
Not as far as we know, and we're not alone. [read post]
18 Jan 2011, 2:19 pm
It didn’t take long for opponents of gay marriage to raise a ruckus. [read post]
13 Nov 2020, 1:54 am
This is what was happening pre-Covid, and it is my advice to my clients because the lines could be very long. [read post]
21 Nov 2023, 2:23 am
How long after marriage can I get a postnuptial agreement? [read post]
18 Jun 2010, 5:00 am
His airy pronouncements, void of empirical support, are contradicted by reality — a reality that could include (as long as we’re speculating) the strengthening of marriage by allowing same-sex couples in. [read post]
23 Dec 2011, 9:00 pm
Just because you're filing for your naturalization after having your green card for 5 years does not mean USCIS will not look at your marriage. [read post]
8 May 2023, 6:56 pm
In this video, attorney Jacob Sapochnick answers some of your burning questions including whether you can expedite your marriage or fiancé(e) visa case in 2023, how long the process is currently taking, and other related questions. [read post]
15 May 2008, 11:45 am
Rainbow Law Center joins the rest of the country who values fairness and equality in applauding the decision of the California Supreme Court today in the "In re: Marriage Cases" when it said:"Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," … [read post]
10 Jan 2015, 4:46 am
That notion dates all the way back to a Supreme Court decision in 1890 in the case of In re Burrus. [read post]
11 Dec 2013, 12:10 pm
If you ever wonder why some people hate attorneys -- including but not limited those previously married to them -- take a look at this case.It's the story of a years-long effort by sole practitioner (and USC Law graduate) Nathan LaMoure to avoid paying attorney's fees to his ex-wife. [read post]
17 Apr 2015, 9:06 pm
Perhaps there is in this also an implication that the second question would not matter greatly in the long run if there were no initial right to marry. [read post]
12 Jun 2012, 1:59 am
It is clear from Schalk is that the European Court of Human Rights is still a long way from seeking to dictate how states should or should not legislate for gay marriage. [read post]
26 Jul 2006, 12:53 pm
" [citing to In re Marriage of Pennington, 142 Wn.2d 592, 601, 14 P.3d 764 (2000).] [read post]
16 Aug 2011, 7:08 am
Like Judge Walker, the California Supreme Court in In re Marriage Cases (2008) found that same-sex civil marriage “will not impinge upon the religious freedom of” anyone, for two reasons: “no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs. [read post]
29 Jun 2015, 4:00 am
#noguarantees In case you’re just returning from a long-weekend sojourn to Mars, on Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. [read post]
17 Nov 2023, 12:04 pm
"It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on October 26, 2023, be modified as follows:On page 11, in lines 5 and 6 of footnote 4, delete the phrase “Tak Chun distastefully implies” and replace it with the phrase “Tak Chun’s comparison could be read to distastefully imply” so the full footnote reads as follows:Tak Chun’s comparison to our Supreme Court’s decision in In re Marriage Cases (2008) 43 Cal.4th 757 is ill conceived,… [read post]
3 Sep 2018, 7:08 am
There is no human mind you're connecting to.But there could be love and longing for real connection.If there is no God, is prayer the same as thinking to yourself? [read post]
