Below are the slides for the class. I was wondering if you could please answer the questions provided in the slides and explain them. Could you also add any important notes for the questions and other bullet points as well. For exam studying purposes. Or if you know documents/website that may help, a lot of material is Arizona specific too.

The retroactivity puzzle . Vermont did NOT impose automatic conversion of civil union to marriage . What if LaFrance and Cline had entered civil union in state where civil unions were automatically EF converted to marriage?Addressing religious obiections LICENSING OFFICIALS CLERGY & RELIGIOUS ENTITIES WEDDING RELATED GOODS AND SERVICES - Private businesses that refuse to provides services for samesex weddings may face sanctions under state or city nondiscrimination laws Defense: freedom of religion, freedom of expression Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (US 2018) Baker refused to make custom wedding cake for same-sex couple on religious grounds. CCRC found him in violation of State's anti- discrimination law. Held: While neutral and generally applicable state law may restrict religious practices, Court found hostility toward Christian religion in record of CCRC's proceedings. \"[lf religious exemptions] were not confined, then a long list of persons who provide goods and services for marriages and weddings might refuse to do so for gay persons, thus resulting in a community wide stigma inconsistent with the history and dynamics of civil rights laws that ensure equal access to goods, services, and public accommodations.\" Brush & Nib Studio v. City of Phoenix (Ariz. 2019M4l3) Calligraphers who refused to make custom wedding invitations for same-sex couple sued for declaratory judgment that Phoenix Human Relations ordinance could not be applied to require them to make invitations. Creating custom invitations = pure speech. - Applying ordinance to custom invitations would compel speech and substantially burden free exercise of religion and therefore subject to strict scrutiny. Governmental interest in nondiscrimination insufficient to justify burden on lst Amendment free speech and free exercise rights. A S \"Nothing in today's holding allows businesses 2 U preme to deny access to goods or services to Court's customers based on their sexual orientation or other protected status.\" caveat: \fPOLYGAMY AND ACCESS TO MARRIAGE Reynolds v. United States (US 1878): Rejection of religious freedom challenge to federal ban on polygamy in Utah Territory . 1890: Withdrawal of plural marriage command within Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints . Continued practice of polygamy today his Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC . FLDS and other breakaway sects . Immigrant communitiesState v. Holm (Utah 2006) Ho/m legally married W#l, religious/y married W#Z and W#3. W#3 (age 16) gave birth to two children by time turned 18. Convicted of bigamy and sexual conduct with minor. Utah bigamy law then in effect: Knowing has spouse, \"purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person.\" Why does court reject Holm's religious freedom argument? As to substantive due process, who is more persuasive, the majority or the dissent? CLOSE TO HOME/ by John McPherson -mall: closetohome@compuserve.com @2001 John McPherson/Dist. by Universal Press Syndicate I SUGGEST YOU PLEAD GUILTY TO THE POLYGAMY CHARGE. I WAS UNABLE TO EXCLUDE THREE OF YOUR MOTHERS-IN-LAW FROM THE JURY. 2-18 www.ucomics.com MATHESONSister Wives and Kody Brown https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Sister+wives+television+clip& docid=607989811094842958&mid=822E5FF921DF7864C38B822E5FF9 21DF7864C38B&view=detail&FORM=VIRE Brown v. Buhman (10th Cir. 2016) (district court upheld Brown's free exercise and due process claims, but 10th Circuit dismissed as moot) Revised Utah statute: Knowing has husband or wife, "purports to marry and cohabitates with the other person." States vary in definitions of incest by consanguinity degree, affinity, step-relationships, and adoption - Marriage prohibitions + criminal penalties Justifications? Genetic risks Protection of vulnerable family members Stability/harmony of family Traditional morality Incest conviction of woman for relationship with uncle that began Smith v. when she was minor. State Why did court reject defendant's argument based on right to Tenn. privacy? 1999 Would Lawrence v. Texas change result?WHAT IS ARIZONA'S APPARENT CONCERN? 25-101. Void and prohibited marriages A. Marriage between parents and children, including grandparents and grandchildren of every degree, between brothers and sisters of the one-half as well as the whole blood, and between uncles and nieces, aunts and nephews and between first cousins, is prohibited and void. B. Notwithstanding subsection A, first cousins may marry if both are sixty-five years of age or older or if one or both first cousins are under sixty-five years of age, upon approval of any superior court judge in the state if proof has been presented to the judge that one of the cousins is unable to reproduce C. Marriage between persons of the same sex is void and prohibited.Two adoptive siblings seek to marry? U nder Arizona Stepfather and stepdaughter seek to law, what if... marry? Two people meet, fall in love, and marry. Later discover through Ancestry.com that they are half siblings? Interstate recognition of marriages Two first cousins marry in Virginia. If they later move to Arizona, should Arizona recognize their marriage?AGE REQUIREMENTS - Common law: 12 for females, 14 for males - State statutory approaches: Age of majority with exceptions based on parental consent & court approval National movement to strengthen age requirements If you were state legislator, what age restrictions would you favor? Smith v. State (Tenn. 1999) Incest conviction of woman for relationship with uncle. Why did court reject defendant's argument based on right to privacy? Would Lawrence v. Texas change result? WHAT IS ARIZONA'S APPARENT CONCERN? 25-101. Void and prohibited marriages A. Marriage between parents and children, including grandparents and grandchildren of every degree, between brothers and sisters of the one- half as well as the whole blood, and between uncles and nieces, aunts and nephews and between first cousins, is prohibited and void. B. Notwithstanding subsection A, first cousins may marry if both are sixty- five years of age or older or if one or both first cousins are under sixty- five years of age, upon approval of any superior court judge in the state if proof has been presented to the judge that one of the cousins is unable to reproduce C. Marriage between persons of the same sex is void and prohibited.Two adoptive siblings seek to marry? U nder Stepfather and stepdaughter seek to marry? Arizona law, what if... Two people meet, fall in love, and marry. Later discover through Ancestry.com that they are half siblings? Interstate recognition of marriages ARS 25-112 A. Marriages valid by the laws of the place where contracted are valid in this state, except marriages that are void and Prohibited by 25-101- Two first cousins marry in Virginia. If they later move to B. Marriages solemnized in another state or country by Arizona should Arizona I parties intending at the time to reside in this state shall have the same legal consequences and effect as if solemnized in this state, except marriages that are void and prohibited by 25-101. recognize their marriage? C. Parties residing in this state may not evade the laws of this state relating to marriage by going to another state or country for solemnization of the marriage AGE REQUIREMENTS Common law: 12 for females, 14 for males State statutory approaches: Age of majority with exceptions based on parental consent & court approval ' Ratification doctrine National movement to strengthen age requirements as human rights issue If you were state legislator, what age restrictions would you favor? New York's new law, effective Aug 2021 . . . \"Any marriage in which either party is under the age of eighteen years is hereby prohibited. Any town or city clerk who shall knowingly issue a marriage license to any persons, one or both of whom shall be at the time of their contemplated marriage actually under the age of eighteen years, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be fined in the sum of one hundred dollars.\" For more information on campaign to eradicate child marriage: tahirih.or childmarria e Entering marriage 0 Mental capacity 0 Physical capacity 0 Consent ' Mutual assent - Not product of coercion or fraud 0 Not a joke! 0 Solemnization 8: license 0 Void and voidable distinction Spousal and third-party efforts to void marriage . . . In re Estate of Santolino H's sister seeking to annuI marriage after H's death due to: Impotence - Incapacity to consent - Fraud Fraud 0 Why the heightened burden of proof? ' Wisniewski v. Dolecka (Ariz. App. 2021) Fraud must go to \"essentials of the marriage" Childbearing plans, sexual intent, pregnancy - Religion What about wealth, social standing, criminal record? Fraud on state immigration implications What if... \"Brenda testified she was unaware of Donald's severe drinking problem until after the marriage and she was upset to discover this and disappointed in his refusal to seek help. She knew before the nuptials that he was unemployed, but did not realize he would refuse to work thereafter. She stated their sex life after marriage was unsatisfactory and that he was dirty and unattractive. In short, he turned from a prince into a frog.\" She petitioned for annulment on ground of fraud. HOW SHOULD THE COURT RULE? Annulment Religious origins - Diminishing distinction between divorce and annulment proceedings - But annulment may revive preexisting court orders - Minor is emancipated through marriage, child support from noncustodial parent is terminated, and then minor's marriage is annulled. Should child support obligation be revived? What if... Man and woman, Arizona residents, travel to El Paso, Texas, where they declare themselves to be husband and wife in front of friends and consummate marriage in motel. After return to Arizona, they continue to cohabit as married couple for several years. When relationship ends, woman files for divorce. Man argues no marriage ever existed. WHAT RESULT? What if Louise and Rachel lived together in Montana from 2000 to 2015, participated in commitment ceremony at start of cohabitation, and used hyphenated last names. They ultimately separated and disagreed about ownership of property acquired during their cohabitation. Louise argued that they had entered into a valid common law marriage and marital property law should therefore apply. Rachel argued that they never intended to marry since same- sex marriage was not recognized at the time. WHAT RESULT? Williams v. Williams (Nev. 2004) After 27-year marriage, H and W learned that W's first marriage never dissolved. H wants annulment. TC granted W 12 share of CP and spousal support. A different remedy: the . Court recognizes putative putative spouse doctrine spouse doctrine: . Marriage ceremony . Good faith belief that no impediment existed . Remedy available to putative spouse