In Baker, the Minnesota Supreme Court interpreted a state statute's use of the term “marriage” to be one of common usage meaning a union “between persons of the opposite sex” and thus not including same-sex marriage.
Summary of this case from Bostic v. SchaeferNo. 71-1027.
10-10-1972
BAKER ET AL. v. NELSON.
Appeal from Sup. Ct. Minn. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.
In Baker, the Minnesota Supreme Court interpreted a state statute's use of the term “marriage” to be one of common usage meaning a union “between persons of the opposite sex” and thus not including same-sex marriage.
Summary of this case from Bostic v. SchaeferIn Baker, the Minnesota Supreme Court rejected the plaintiffs' Equal Protection Clause challenge, and held that “there is no “irrational and invidious discrimination” ” because “in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.” 191 N.W.2d at 187.
Summary of this case from Inniss v. AderholdIn Baker, the Minnesota Supreme Court rejected the plaintiffs' challenge to a state law that limited marriage to a man and a woman.
Summary of this case from Inniss v. Aderholddismissing appeal "for want of a substantial federal question"
Summary of this case from Pidgeon v. TurnerFull title:BAKER ET AL. v. NELSON.
Court:Supreme Court of the United States
Date published: Oct 10, 1972
The marriage ban violates plaintiffs' due process rights under the New York Constitution by denying them,…
Hernandez v. Robles(recognizing "the long-standing statutory understanding, derived from the common law, that 'marriage' means…