Evans V. Colorado Case Summary

In The Gay Marriage Case, Obergefell v Hodges, the United States Supreme Court decided that a state may not prohibit same-sex marriage. Instead, it emphasized that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to the gay society through the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment of the United States of America Constitution. The involved decision maker in the case was Justice Anthony Kennedy, who gave four primary reasons for his decision.

Lawrence v. Texas: The Justification for the Decision and its Significance for the LGBTQ+ Community

In the case Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558, 2003) which was the United States Supreme Court case the criminal prohibition of the homosexual pederasty was invalidated in Texas. The same issue has been already addressed in 1989 in the case Bowers v. Hardwick, however, the constitutional protection of sexual privacy was not found at that time. Lawrence overruled Bowers and held that sexual conduct was the right protected by the due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The effects of the ruling were quite widespread and led to invalidation of the similar laws throughout the United States that tried to criminalize the homosexual activity of adults which were acting in privacy. The case attracted much of the public

The Supreme Court ruled in favor for Lopez on April 26th of 1995. In a disputable 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld

In 1960, the Oceana Supreme Court, in State v. Fenny, refused to the extend the 1803 statute to protect "homosexual marriage". This case is not applicable to Clark because the matter involves a homosexual act not a homosexual marriage.

As a result, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, a House of Representative’s committee, attempted to uphold the bill’s constitutionality. They appealed to the Supreme Court to overturn the lower courts’ decision, but the Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts’ decision and deemed the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional in 2013. Then, Obergefell vs Hodges officially stated that same-sex marriage is protected under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause in 2015 (“Same Sex Marriage, 2017).

I join the opinion of the court in favor of Hodges and offer these accompanying thoughts. In order to determine if the state is required under the Fourteenth Amendment to license a marriage of same sex, we must establish a foundation in regards to marriage and its entitlements. The court argues that marriage “is not a fundamental right,” and with this conclusion, the state is not be required to legally recognize any marriage it does not see fit. Fundamental rights are due strict scrutiny, but issues of liberty interest only require rational basis. There is a significant difference between the two approaches with ‘rational basis’ only requiring that the law be related to a government interest. “Rational basis” review is generally used in cases where fundamental rights are of issue and is thus fitting for this case under these assumptions.” The constitution does not specifically list marriage as a fundamental right in the Bill of Rights or any of its additional amendments and thus leaves ample room for interpretation of is significance. The defense attempts to use the Fourteenth amendment in their defense as it asserts,

Facts: In 2008, the California Supreme Court held that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violated the California Constitution. In response, California voters passed Proposition 8, amending the State Constitution such that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized.” The California Supreme Court held that Proposition 8 was properly enacted under state law. Respondents (Perry et al.) are two same sex couples who wish to marry, and filed suit to challenge Proposition 8 in Federal Court. The suit named various state officials as defendants, yet they did not defend nor appeal any subsequent ruling in court. The federal district court allowed the official proponents (Hollingsworth et al.) of the Proposition to intervene

In the case of State v, Evans, he was a stalker who stalked Arnold. In the case their was a couple of incidences where he raned into her on purpose, so he was charged with stalking . In the case I will give the facts, issues, and court holding.

Under Colorado case law, any covenant not to compete, which restricts the right of any person to receive compensation for performance of skilled or unskilled labor for any employer shall be void, unless the agreement fits into one of four statutory exceptions, such as the employee qualifying as executive and management personnel. If the agreement fits into one of the four exceptions it must be deemed reasonable in scope and duration, to be enforceable. Is the non-compete Mr. Marin signed, reasonable in scope and duration when he is not allowed to work for a period of two years in the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Wyoming, Utah, or Kansas in directly or indirectly entering into the employ of, or rendering any service to, any person, partnership, association, corporation, or other entity engaged in cultivating cannabis; processing, extracting, or manufacturing cannabis concentrates, edibles, or other products; or dispensing medical or recreational cannabis.

In the 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that that state laws banning gay person homosexuality are illegal as an infringement of the privilege to protection. The case of Lawrence v. Texas was a clear takeoff from the Court's conservative procedure in the 1980s and 1990s, which discovered proof of central rights just in exercises the laws themselves considerably ensured ("history and conventions"). Houston police were dispatched to Lawrence's (defendant in the case) home because of a reported weapons aggravation. The officers discovered Lawrence and Garner (defendant) whom at the time was having sex. Lawrence and Garner were charged, indicted, and convicted under Texas law of "deviate sexual intercourse, specifically anal sex, with an individual

In the 1996 Supreme Court case Romer v. Evans, the voters of the state of Colorado approved a second amendment to their state Constitution through a referendum, in order to prevent homosexuals from becoming a protected minority. Before the referendum occurred, many of the major cities in Colorado passed laws prohibiting people to be discriminated against based on their sexuality, including whether or not they are homosexual. The citizens of Colorado who disapprove of homosexuality then created a petition to put the second amendment to a vote, and won with a majority of 53% of the votes. Richard Evans, with the support of many others, took the amendment to court claiming it was unconstitutional, and should be removed from the constitution,

The judge in the Colorado shooting case has sentenced a woman to three weeks in jail for interrupting the lead prosecutor during closing arguments in the latest stage of the penalty phase.

The Washington Posts response to the Suprem Court rulling is effective. It provides the audince with the information of the case, baground and history of same sex marrige rights in the U.S. in years leading up to the decission. The Washington post also provides some information about resistence held in some southern states, mostly Louisiana. The intendeded audence, the American people, was reached becuse the story was published in an American mainstream newspaper

The judge for this case was United States District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who is now confirmed to be openly gay. On AugU.S.t 4, 2010, Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Proposition 8 violated the equal protection and due process claU.S.es of the United States Constitution. After this ruling, the proponents of Proposition 8 immediately filled an appeal of the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. A hearing before a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit began and the panel asked the California Supreme Court to clarify whether or not the petitioners have standing under Article III of the Constitution to argue this case (CAC). While the case is on appeal, the proponents file motion to vacate the ruling of Judge Walker because of his homosexual sexual orientation but the motion is declined but the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The question of the petitioners standing then moves to the California Supreme Court where they rule that the proponents had the right to pursue an appeal. By February 2012 the Ninth Circuit upheld Judge Walker’s decision declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional, but the propositions backers don’t give up yet. They then proceed to ask the Ninth Circuit to have a larger judge panel to review the decision, but they are denied. Instead the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the