Adams v. Howerton, 486 F. Supp. 1119 (C.D. Cal.
1980), aff’d on other grounds, 673 F.2d 1036
(9th Cir. 1982)
This case involved a demand that INS grant “immediate
relative” status to an Australian citizen based
on same-sex “marriage.” The court ruled that
it would not recognize the marriage because the U.S. Supreme
Court had already rejected the merits of constitutional
claims for same-sex “marriage” in Baker
v. Nelson.
In re Kandu, Case No. 03-51312 (W.D. Wash., Aug.
17, 2004)
Two lesbians filed a joint petition in bankruptcy. The
bankruptcy judge ordered them to show cause why the joint
petition should not be dismissed, based upon federal DOMA’s
definition of “marriage” for all federal statutes,
since only a married couple may file a joint petition.
On August 17, 2004, the trial judge ruled that the definition
of marriage in DOMA is constitutional. The debtor is appealing
to the federal district court. Any appeal from the district
court will go to the Ninth Circuit.
Lemons, et al. v. Bradbury, et al.
In May 2007, the Oregon Legislature passed bills which created civil unions in Oregon with an effective date of January 1, 2008. The effective date could be delayed by statewide election if enough signatures were submitted to the Secretary of State. The State claimed not enough valid signatures were obtained. The Court granted a preliminary injunction, but denied the motion for permanent injunction. The decision has been appealed to the Ninth Circuit and waiting for oral argument.
Perry, et al. v. Schwarzenegger, et al. (N.D. Cal. - San Francisco Division)
Plaintiffs request a preliminary injunction that would stop the enforcement of Proposition 8, insofar as it limits civil marriage in California to the union of a man and a woman, and prohibits two individuals of the same sex from getting married. Plaintiffs allege that Prop 8 violates same-sex couples' right to make personal decisions about marriage without unwarranted state intrusion, as well as, their right to due process and equal protection under the 14th Amendment.
Smelt
v. Orange County (C.D. Cal. - Santa Ana Division)
Federal suit alleges that California's definition of marriage
as being between one man an women violates rights granted
under the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the
United States Constitution.
Smelt, et al. v. United States, et al. (C.D. Cal. - Santa Ana Division)
Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer, a same-sex couple "married" in the State of California, filed a lawsuit contending that the Federal DOMA and California's Proposition 8 violate the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs seek to compel the United States to eliminate any legal distinction between the rights of same-sex and opposite-sex couples. Plaintiffs also ask the Court to compel the State of California to remove Proposition 8 from its Constitution.
