I did not take notes for this class as well. 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.

Statewide laws vary as to gender, age, and \"incest\" restrictions Municipal ordinances limited in scope Public and private employers California Domestic Partnership; Law a|l sgousal rights and duties ' GENESIS: UNEQUAL ACCESS TO MARRIAGE - Now available regardless of gender or age. ' Cannot be within prohibited degree of relationship Civil Unions in Vermont . Vermont civil union law: response to 1999 Vt. Supreme Court decision . Automatic conversion of civil union to marriage in 2009 (when same-sex marriage became available) . No new civil unions available ACEDOM VERMONT In UMIT IS AUTOMATIC CONVERSION GOOD POLICY? This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-5A-NCHawaii's reciprocal beneficiary law 0 Exclusive 0 Available to two people \"who are legally prohibited from marrying" 0 Extends subset of rights: e.g., inheritance, workers compensation benefits, hospital visitation, etc. Two unigue statewide frameworks 0 Exclusive 0 Available to any two people, regardless of familial relationship 0 May choose from menu of rights/ responsibilities \fFramework for substantive due process analysis - Does dispute involve a protected liberty/privacy interest? - Has government infringed the protected interest? ls government's purpose constitutionally permissible and sufficiently important? - Is there a sufficient fit between chosen means and government's purpose? Griswold v. Connecticut I (1965) Criminal prosecution of doctor and clinic director for aiding married couple in obtaining access to contraceptives What was state's goal? 0 Where in Constitution does Court find protection for married people's use of contraceptives? Justice Douglas's penumbras & emanations. 1 st - right of association 3rd - no quartering soldiers 4th - security in one's home 5th - no compelled self-incriminatin 9th - rights reserved to the people 14th - due process of lawDouglas why the statute fails: it invades the privacy of marriage To forbid use of contraceptives imposes Conn. law operates directly on intimate Marital relationship is within the zone of privacy maximum destructive effect on their relationship relations of husband and wife (and physician's role) Centrality of marriage to the holding . "Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions." 2. Goldberg: 9th Amendment protects unenumerated rights retained by people . Harlan: 14th Amendment protects Other rights "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" justices . .. . White: 14th Amendment protects liberty of married couple . Black & Stewart in dissent: Constitution does not contain right of privacyEisenstadt v. Baird (1971) Criminal prosecution for handing contraceptive foam to unmarried female college student ' What did Massachusetts law provide and what were the goals? Married people could get contraceptives to prevent pregnancy, but single people could not. - Married and single people could get contraceptives to prevent disease. Contraceptives available only through doctor or pharmacist on prescription. . Equal Protection - different treatment of married and single people Constitutional . Standard of review? basis for holding in . Rejects stated goals as irrational Eisenstadt . discourage premarital sex . protect health . bar contraception as immoralJustice Brennan's famous o,assae \"If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.\" WHY IS THIS CALLED A NEGATIVE RIGHT? Contraception still in the news... Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (US 2014): Affordable Care Act's mandate that employers pay for insurance covering contraception violated federal Religious Freedom and Restoration Act as applied to closelyheld companies owned by Christian families. Families objected to certain forms of contraception as akin to abortion. Alternatives available to accomplish Government's purpose. Privacy protecting intimate sexual conduct Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) (5-4) Court upheld Ga. law that criminalized sodomy between consenting adults: . no fundamental right involved . majoritarian morality is sufficient state interest to satisfy rational basis reviewThe New York Times Lawrence v. Texas NEW YORK FRIDAY, KINE 30. 290 6-3, LEGALIZE GAY SEXUAL CONDI (2003 (5-4 ING REVERSAL OF COURT'S '86 RU CITE PR Tears Sod Uscom Texas law criminalized sexual incing ichools, conduct between persons of rt Finds same sex. Officers investigating weapons disturbance entered Lawrence's apartment and discovered Lawrence and Garner in sexual act.Justice Kennedy's oginion - What was wrong with the way the Court had characterized the issue in Bowers? How does the Court define the liberty at stake? What is the standard of review? - What is the holding? Other Justices . . . On what basis did O'Connor concur? What is basis of dissent (Scalia, Rehnquist, Thomas)?Criminal laws against prostitution After Lawrence, Criminal laws against adultery would any of the Criminal laws against incest following be unconstitutional? Criminal laws against polygamy Laws barring same-sex marriageLawre n ce V. Texa S Texas law furthers no legitimate state Interest which can justify its intrusion into personal and private life of Re ca p individual\" and is therefore unconstitutional invasion of liberty protected by Due Process Clause of 14th Amendment. Court applies heightened scrutiny but does not use language of "fundamental rights " or "strict scrutiny. " Criminal law against prostitution After Lawrencez Criminal law against adultery would any of the following be Civil law prohibiting adoption of children by LGBT individuals ARS 13-1408. Adultery; classification; punishment; limitation on prosecution A. A married person who has sexual intercourse with another than his or her spouse, and an unmarried person who has sexual intercourse with a married person not his or her spouse, - I commits adultery and is guilty of a class 3 Arlzona S misdemeanor. When the act is committed between parties only one of whom is married, both shall be punished. adultery law B. No prosecution for adultery shall be ' commenced except upon complaint of the husband or wife. I I Freedom to marry How does this differ from other fundamental rights?Anti-miscegenation laws . Date back to colonial times . Spurious categories of "race" . Arizona's example "The marriage of a person of Caucasian blood with a Negro, Mongolian, Malay, or Hindu is null and void."Loving v. Virginia (1967) Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving, interracial couple living in Virginia, married in District of Columbia, then returned to Virginia. There they were criminally convicted, sentenced, and ordered to leave Virginia.O . Prohibited white person from marrying non-white person Defined "white person" as having "no trace whatsoever of any blood other than Virginia's Racial Caucasian," but also included persons with 1/16th or less of blood of American Integrity Act Indian and no other "non-Caucasic blood" Barred state from recognizing out-of-state marriage between Virginia residents\fDifferentiating the constitutional holdings in Loving How did the state defend against the Equal Protection claim and why did the Court reject its argument? What standard of review did Court apply Why is the Due Process for the Equal holding important? Protection claim? Rogers v. Va. State Registrar [E.D. Va. 2020] Constitutional challenge to marriage license application requiring applicants to provide race. - What standard of review did court apply and why? Why wasn't state's interest in data collection sufficient? Zablocki v. RedhaH* (US 1978) *Red Hail Wisconsin law barred marriage for noncustodial parent unless parent could prove that had complied with child support orders and that children were not on welfare and were not likely to be on welfare in future. - What standard of review did the Court use and why? - Why wasn't Wisconsin's statutory scheme an effective means of accomplishing its goals? What does right to marry under Zablocki mean? City employee is fired after marrying her supervisor. City's anti-nepotism policy forbids immediate family members (parent, child, or spouse) from working in same department. How would you use Zablocki if you represented employee? How would you respond if you represented City