My Outline (legal con):
1) Baker v. Nelson a) Original Case i) May 18, 1970: Richard Baker and James Michael McConnell denied a marriage license in
Minneapolis purely because they were two members of the same sex ii) Couple filed suit, claiming that the Minnesota's marriage statutes contained no explicit requirement that applicants be of different sexes, and that this interpretation would violate the first, eighth, ninth, and fourteenth amendments of the U.S. Constitution iii) Trial court dismissed the claims b) Appeal to Minnesota Supreme Court i) October 15, 1971: appeal denied ii) “The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis” iii) In regards to plaintiffs’ use of Loving v. Virginia (used to support the violation of equalprotection): "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." iv) Griswold v. Connecticut (argued that criminalizing the possession of contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy) supported argument for marital privacy in the Ninth Amendment, but the court found no authority for the Ninth Amendment being binding to the states c) Appeal to U.S. Supreme Court i) October 10, 1972: "The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question." d) Application i) Detailed legal argument of institution of marriage’s involving the bearing and raising of children ii) Dictates distinction between racial and sexual marital restriction iii) Because a state could use the traditional definition of marriage without violating equal protection, it follows that Congress could do the same iv) Could be used as precedent on many future court cases
2) Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) a) 1996 b) Prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages and allows each state to refuse recognition of same-sex marriage in other states c) Defines marriage in federal law and inter-state recognition as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' as a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife i) Section 3: Codifies non-recognition of same-sex marriage for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors’ benefits, immigration, and the filing of joint tax returns
(1) Has been found unconstitutional in eight federal courts, including two federal appeals courts
(a) Five cases currently pending review by U.S. Supreme Court
(2) Obama administration declared it unconstitutional in 2011
(3) Will continue to enforce the law, but will no longer defend it in court d) Does not prevent states from defining marriage as they see fit
3) Marriage cannot be treated as a fundamental right a) In order for something to be considered a “fundamental right,” it must have a foundation in
American history, legal traditions, and practices b) It has none of these things, because it was unheard of in law until 2003
4) Illegal in vast majority of states a) Statute laws ban same-sex marriage: i) Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Indiana, Minnesota, Wyoming, Delaware b) State Constitution bans same-sex marriage i) Tennessee, Mississippi, Missouri, Alaska, Montana c) State Constitution bans same-sex marriage and some or all other same-sex unions

i) Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, South Dakota, North Dakota,
Idaho, Alabama, Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas,
Nebraska, Utah d) California i) Legal from June 16, 2008 – November 5, 2008 due to a ruling by the Supreme Court of
California based on an equal protection agreement ii) Rescinded by Proposition 8
(1) An amendment to the California State Constitution iii) Marriages performed by any civil entity before Proposition 8 are still legally recognized iv) Marriages performed after Proposition 8 by any other jurisdiction retain the rights that come with marriage except the term itself