Scribd Logo
Hochladen

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Jones v. Hallahan

    Uploaded by

    SOPHIA AMOR
    153 views3 pages
    Two women applied for a marriage license from the Jefferson County Clerk and were denied. They sued, arguing this denied their constitutional rights. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the denial. It defined marriage as the legal union of a man and woman, citing dictionaries and state statutes. The court said the women were prevented from marrying not by the clerk but by their inability to enter a marriage as defined. It found no constitutional protection for same-sex marriage.

    Original Description:

    case

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Two women applied for a marriage license from the Jefferson County Clerk and were denied. They sued, arguing this denied their constitutional rights. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the denial. It defined marriage as the legal union of a man and woman, citing dictionaries and state statutes. The court said the women were prevented from marrying not by the clerk but by their inability to enter a marriage as defined. It found no constitutional protection for same-sex marriage.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    153 views3 pages

    Jones v. Hallahan

    Uploaded by

    SOPHIA AMOR
    Two women applied for a marriage license from the Jefferson County Clerk and were denied. They sued, arguing this denied their constitutional rights. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the denial. It defined marriage as the legal union of a man and woman, citing dictionaries and state statutes. The court said the women were prevented from marrying not by the clerk but by their inability to enter a marriage as defined. It found no constitutional protection for same-sex marriage.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    7/30/2015

    JONESv.HALLAHAN|Leagle.com

    JONES v. HALLAHAN
    501 S.W.2d 588 (1973)

    Marjorie JONES et al., Appellants, v. James HALLAHAN, Clerk of the Jefferson


    County Court, Appellee.
    Court of Appeals of Kentucky.
    November 9, 1973.

    DavidKaplan,StuartL.Lyon,Louisville,forappellants.
    J.BruceMiller,Louisville,forappellee.

    VANCE,Commissioner.
    Theappellants,eachofwhomisafemaleperson,seekreviewofajudgmentoftheJefferson
    CircuitCourtwhichheldthattheywerenotentitledtohaveissuedtothemalicensetomarry
    eachother.
    Appellantscontendthatthefailureoftheclerktoissuethelicensedeprivedthemofthreebasic
    constitutionalrights,namely,therighttomarrytherightofassociationandtherighttofree
    exerciseofreligion.Theyalsocontendthattherefusalsubjectsthemtocruelandunusual
    punishment.
    ThesectionsofKentuckystatutesrelatingtomarriagedonotincludeadefinitionofthatterm.It
    mustthereforebedefinedaccordingtocommonusage.
    Webster'sNewInternationalDictionary,SecondEdition,definesmarriageasfollows:
    Astateofbeingmarried,orbeingunitedtoapersonorpersonsoftheoppositesexas
    husbandorwifealso,themutualrelationofhusbandandwifewedlockabstractly,
    the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and
    legaldependence,forthepurposeoffoundingandmaintainingafamily.
    TheCenturyDictionaryandEncyclopediadefinesmarriageas:
    data:text/htmlcharset=utf8,%3Cdiv%20class%3D%22heading%22%20style%3D%22padding%3A%200.5em%200em%3B%20borderbottomwidth%3A%201

    1/3

    7/30/2015

    JONESv.HALLAHAN|Leagle.com

    The legal union of a man with a woman for life the state or condition of being
    marriedthelegalrelationofspousestoeachotherwedlocktheformaldeclaration
    orcontractbywhichamanandawomanjoininwedlock.
    Black'sLawDictionary,FourthEdition,definesmarriageas:
    Thecivilstatus,conditionorrelationofonemanandonewomanunitedinlawfor
    life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally
    incumbentuponthosewhoseassociationisfoundedonthedistinctionofsex.
    Kentuckystatutesdonotspecificallyprohibitmarriagebetweenpersonsofthesamesex1nor
    dotheyauthorizetheissuanceofamarriagelicensetosuchpersons.
    Marriagewasacustomlongbeforethestatecommencedtoissuelicensesforthatpurpose.For
    atimetherecordsofmarriagewerekeptbythechurch.Somestatesevennowrecognizea
    commonlawmarriagewhichhasneitherthebenefitoflicensenorclergy.Inallcases,however,
    marriagehasalwaysbeenconsideredastheunionofamanandawomanandwehavebeen
    presentedwithnoauthoritytothecontrary.
    Itappearstousthatappellantsarepreventedfrommarrying,notbythestatutesofKentuckyor
    therefusaloftheCountyCourtClerkofJeffersonCountytoissuethemalicense,butratherby
    theirownincapabilityofenteringintoamarriageasthattermisdefined.
    Alicensetoenterintoastatusorarelationshipwhichthepartiesareincapableofachievingisa
    nullity.Iftheappellantshadconcealedfromtheclerkthefactthattheywereofthesamesex
    andhehadissuedalicensetothemandaceremonyhadbeenperformed,theresulting
    relationshipwouldnotconstituteamarriage.
    ThisisacaseoffirstimpressioninKentucky.Toourknowledge,onlytwootherstateshave
    consideredthequestionandbothofthemhavereachedthesameresultthatwereachinthis
    opinion.Baker
    [501S.W.2d590]

    v.Nelson,291Minn.310,191N.W.2d185(1971),appealdismissedforwantofasubstantialfederal
    question,409U.S.810,93S.Ct.37,34L.Ed.2d65Anonymousv.Anonymous,67Misc.2d982,325
    N.Y.S.2d499.

    Bakerv.Nelsonconsideredmanyoftheconstitutionalissuesraisedbytheappellantshereand
    data:text/htmlcharset=utf8,%3Cdiv%20class%3D%22heading%22%20style%3D%22padding%3A%200.5em%200em%3B%20borderbottomwidth%3A%201

    2/3

    7/30/2015

    JONESv.HALLAHAN|Leagle.com

    decidedthemadverselytoappellants.Inourview,however,noconstitutionalissueisinvolved.
    Wefindnoconstitutionalsanctionorprotectionoftherightofmarriagebetweenpersonsofthe
    samesex.
    Theclaimofreligiousfreedomcannotbeextendedtomaketheprofesseddoctrinessuperiorto
    thelawofthelandandineffecttopermiteverycitizentobecomealawuntohimself.Reynolds
    v.UnitedStates,98U.S.145.Wedonotconsidertherefusaltoissuethelicenseapunishment.
    Insubstance,therelationshipproposedbytheappellantsdoesnotauthorizetheissuanceofa
    marriagelicensebecausewhattheyproposeisnotamarriage.
    Thejudgmentisaffirmed.
    Allconcur.
    FootNotes

    1.KRS402.020(5)andKRS402.210docontainreferencestothemaleandfemaleofthespecies.

    data:text/htmlcharset=utf8,%3Cdiv%20class%3D%22heading%22%20style%3D%22padding%3A%200.5em%200em%3B%20borderbottomwidth%3A%201

    3/3

    You might also like