Key laws:
Autonomy of family members: the demise of intrafamily immunities Shook v Crabb – Iowa, 1979 (281 N.W.2d 616); Shearer v Shearer – Ohio, 1985 (480 N.E.2d 99); Cates v Cates – Illinois, 1993 (619 N.E.2d 715)
“While it is currently fashionable to treat the harmony of the home lightly, the family nevertheless remains the bulwark of our society. Permitting H and W to sue each other for negligence is inimical to the very notion of harmony and trust so important to the marriage relationship. ... I cannot subscribe to a policy which turns the family dinner table into a trial rehearsal, with children choosing up sides as to which parent is right.” -Justice Clay LeGrand (dissenting), in Shook Autonomy to define family: the battle over marital rights for cohabitants Hewitt v. Hewitt – Illinois, 1979 (394 N.E.2d 1204); Glasgo v. Glasgo – Indiana, 1980 (410 N.E.2d 1325); Slocum v. Hammond – Iowa, 1984 (346 N.W.2d 485)
Autonomy to define family: the battle over gay marriage Morrison v. Sadler – Indiana, 2005 (821 N.E.2d 15); National Pride at Work v. Governor – Michigan, 2008 (748 N.W.2d 524); Varnum v. Brien – Iowa, 2009 (763 N.W.2d 862)
“This class of people asks a simple and direct question: How can a state premised on the constitutional principle of equal protection justify exclusion of a class of Iowans from civil marriage? … Plaintiffs are in committed and loving relationships, many raising families, just like heterosexual couples. …[O]fficial recognition of their status provides an institutional basis for defining their fundamental relational rights and responsibilities, just as it does for heterosexual couples.” -Justice Mark Cady, in Varnum TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THIS PERIOD, CLICK ON THE LINK BELOW. YOU CAN ALSO USE THE "SITEMAP" TAB AND THE LINKS ABOVE TO GO TO:
|
Gay marriage advocate at Minnesota state capitol, 2010 (courtesy Wikimedia Commons) “When feudal concepts of a marital entity evolve to the modern concept of the marital partnership, it is the court’s duty to see that the law reflects the changing face of society.” - Justice Grey, in Shearer “The notion that parent-child tort immunity promotes family harmony in the area of negligence … has now been largely discounted. Without exception, legal scholars recognize that, more often than not, it is the injury, if anything, which disrupts the family … [But c]ourts should not be involved in deciding matters between parent and child which concern decisions which those persons are uniquely equipped to make because of that relationship.” -Justice Charles Freeman, in Cates
“To apply the traditional rationale denying recovery
to one party in cases where contracts are held to be void simply because
illegal sexual relations are posited as consideration for the bargain is
unfair, unjust, and unduly harsh. Such
unnecessary results probably do more to discredit the legal system … than to
strengthen the institution of marriage or the moral fiber of our society.” -Judge Wesley Ratliff, in Glasgo “The policy favoring marriage is not rooted only in community mores. It is also rooted in the necessity of providing an institutional basis for defining the fundamental relational rights and responsibilities of persons in organized society. This policy would be subverted if persons could gain marital legal rights without accepting correlative marital legal responsibilities.” -Chief Justice W.W. Reynoldson , in Slocum
“The institution of opposite-sex marriage both encourages such couples to enter into a stable relationship before having children and to remain in such a relationship if children arrive during the marriage unexpectedly. The recognition of same-sex marriage would not further this interest in heterosexual ‘responsible procreation.’” -Judge Michael Barnes, in Sadler “It is not for this Court to decide whether there are superior means for securing and preserving the benefits of marriage, or indeed whether the means chosen in the [law denying benefits to same-sex partners] are ineffectual or even counterproductive. The people of this state have already spoken on this issue by adopting this amendment.” -Justice Stephen Markman, in National Pride
|
EMPIRE OF LAWS - The Legal History of the 50 American States > 5. MIDWEST LEGAL HISTORY > 5.6. The Midwest, 1965-Present: The Age of Autonomy > 5.6.1. The Midwest, 1965-Present: Autonomy in Education >