Assignment for next class
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 4

Assignment for Next Class PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 73 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Assignment for Next Class. California Cases interpreting Family Code 308(a) McDonald v McDonald (Handout p. 1) Kaur v Florence Boyles (Handout pp. 2-3) California Family Code 308 and 308.5 (Handout pp. 4-5) Same-sex Marriage Cases Martinez v. County of Monroe (Handout pp. 6-7)

Download Presentation

Assignment for Next Class

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Assignment for next class

Assignment for Next Class

  • California Cases interpreting Family Code 308(a)

    • McDonald v McDonald (Handout p. 1)

    • Kaur v Florence Boyles (Handout pp. 2-3)

    • California Family Code 308 and 308.5 (Handout pp. 4-5)

  • Same-sex Marriage Cases

    • Martinez v. County of Monroe (Handout pp. 6-7)

    • In re Marriage of J.B. and H.B. (Casebook pp. 78-87)

    • Koppelman, “Interstate Recognition of Same-Sex Marriages” (Handout pp. 8-14)

  • Questions on the next pages

  • Optional

    • Hoffheimer, Chapter 9 p. 105 and Qs 8 & 9

    • Spillenger pp. 277-79


Questions for next class

Questions for Next Class

  • McDonald v McDonald

    • The California Supreme court in this case recognized an exception to Civil Code 63 “when marriage is regarded as odious by common consent of nations….”

    • Is this exception based on sound statutory interpretation?

    • Do you think the case might have come out differently if the woman, upon turning 18, had petitioned the court to annul the marriage so that she could marry a different man?

    • Suppose, in 1936, the only country to recognize same-sex marriages was Thailand and that a same-sex couple from Thailand moved to California. Do you think California courts would have recognized the marriage?

      • Does yoru answer to the previous question depend on whether (a) one of the men was being prosecuted for bigamy for a subsequent marriage to a California woman, or (b) one of the men was seeking inheritance after the other died intestate?


Questions for the next class

Questions for the Next Class

  • Kaur v Boyles

    • Did the outcome surprise you?

    • The last paragraph mentions that public policy might have had a greater role in a suit against the man for cohabitation. Why?

  • California Family Code 308

    • Based on Kaur v. Boyles and McDonald v McDonald, do you think a same-sex marriage contracted in a state which allowed such marriages would have been recognized in California before the 2009 amendments to California Family Code 308?

    • What difference do the 2009 Amendments make?

    • Do you think that the 2009 Amendments are constitutional?

  • Martinez v County of Monroe and In re Marriage of J.B. and H.B

    • Why do you think these two cases came out differently?

    • If the Texas courts won’t grant J.B. a divorce, is there any way that he can get one?

      • Suppose H.B. does not want to get divorced, how would you advise him to retain his marital status?


Questions for the next class koppelman

Questions for the Next Class: Koppelman

  • Do you agree that the most sensible approach to migratory marriages is to decide them on a case-by-case approach depending on which “incident” of marriage is at issue?

  • Suppose the scenario discussed on p. 12 unfolds in Texas. How do you think a Texas judge would handle the issues?

    • That is, suppose a lesbian coupled married in Massachusetts and had a child there with a sperm donor. The biological mother and child travel to Texas and get into an accident.

      • Would the other half of the lesbian couple be allowed to visit her in the hospital?

      • If the biological mother died, would the child be declared an orphan and put in foster care?

      • If you were a Texas judge, how would you try to avoid these outcomes?

  • According to Koppelman, southern states in the time of Jim Crow recognized mixed-race marriages for inheritance purposes. He argues that the same should be true for same-sex marriages, even in states which do not recognize them. (See p. 12)

    • Do you think Texas would recognize same-sex marriages for the purpose of inheritance?

    • If your answer is “no,” why do you think Koppelman either rejected or did not consider your arguments?


  • Login