Retrieved 24 July Retrieved on 4 December JusBrazil in Portuguese.
Indeed, the District of Columbia marriage statute reflects an altogether different tradition. It shall be the duty of the Clerk of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia before issuing any license to solemnize a marriage to examine any applicant for dc same sex marriage in Regina license under oath and to ascertain the names and ages of the parties desiring to marry, and if they are under age the names of their parents or guardians, whether they were previously married, whether they are related or not, and if so, in what degree, which facts shall appear on the face of the application, of which the Clerk shall provide a printed form, and any false swearing in regard to such matters shall be deemed perjury.
Judge Bowers granted summary judgment for the District. DC for Marriage was an emerging group of local residents working toward equal rights and responsibilities for same-sex couples in the District of Columbia. The difficulties of legislative fact-finding especially its differences from traditional, record-based adjudicative fact-findingcause some lawyers and judges to say that, at least in difficult, controversial cases, legislative fact-finding should be left to the legislature.
The law takes effect on July 20, Comes now, finally, the dispositive question: on the basis of the non-record sources supplied by the parties and augmented by this court's own research, are we in a position to decideby applying constitutional norms to legislative factswhether homosexuals are a suspect or quasi-suspect class entitled to strict or intermediate scrutiny of the marriage statute that allegedly discriminates against them, in violation of the equal protection clause?
I hereby certify that on this Circuit itself had noted earlier, "[Hardwick] did not reach the difficult issue of whether an agency of the federal government can discriminate against individuals merely because of sexual orientation. Although the Council undoubtedly intended the Human Rights Act to be read broadly to eliminate the many proscribed forms of discrimination in the District, we cannot conclude that the Council ever intended to change the ordinary meaning of the word "marriage" simply by enacting the Human Rights Act.
How can legislative fact-finding best be conducted? If the state can deny that right to heterosexuals and homosexuals alike by criminalizing consensual sodomy by everyone, consistent with due process, based on a tradition of criminal sodomy statutes that have drawn no distinction between homosexual and heterosexual sodomy, see Watkins, F.
We emphasized: "If the Council had intended to effect such a dramatic change
Degree of recognition unknown. Retrieved 21 December Retrieved 20 December