Marriage: Perez v' Sharp

1
Marriage Perez v. Sharp

• I will be in the office 2-3 today
• Rjgarcia_at_ucsd.edu
• Monday Perez v. Sharp (available on web)
• Wednesday Loving v Virginia
• Friday Goodridge (not Greaney concurrence)

2
Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

• Majority (by Kennedy, J.) Things have changed
  1) Casey 2) Romer 3) Repeal 4) Scholarly and
  Intl disapproval. Stare Decisis is not an
  inexorable command.
• The statute as drafted presents equal protection
  problems, but we do not want to see a redrafted
  statute, so we overrule Bowers and find the law
  violates due process
• Dissent (by Scalia, J. and 3 others) The states
  morality is a legitimate and sufficient reason
  for this law

3
Romer v. Evans (1996)

• Popular initiatives passed by majorities are
  subject to no less review than the same laws by
  legislatures.
• The Court purports to apply rational basis
  scrutiny but many think it is rational basis with
  a bite a la Plyler and Cleburne.
• Justice Scalia dissents, as in Lawrence, that a
  state can legitimately disapprove of homosexual
  conduct.

4
Perez v. Sharp (Cal. S.Ct. 1948)

• Andrea Perez and Sylvester Davis challenged
  California anti-miscegenation law on religious
  freedom, equal protection and substantive due
  process grounds.
• Majority opinion (Traynor, J. 3) This is part
  of the fundamental right to marry someone of
  their own choice. The ban on interracial marriage
  is unconstitutional.
• Dissent (Schenk, J. 2) Regulating marriage
  is the purview of the state.