970 F. Supp. 2d 456 - Bostic v. Rainey’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 5 district ·

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[a]ncient lineage of a legal concept does not give it immunity from attack for lacking a rational basis.” Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 326 , 113 S.Ct. 2637 , 125 L.Ed.2d 257 (1993). Moreover, " 'the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack.’ ” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 577-78 , 123 S.Ct. 2472 , 156 L.Ed.2d 508 (2003) (quoting Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, 216 , 106 S.Ct. 2841 , 92 L.Ed.2d 140 (1986) (Stevens, J., dissenting)). . Two federal district courts have held bench trials that focused on this question. Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F.Supp.2d 921 (2010); DeBoer v. Snyder, 973 F.Supp.2d 757 (E.D.Mich.2014). Both found that the overwhelming scientific consensus favors the "no differences”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Latta v. Otter

2. “That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bostic v. Schaefer

3. “The alleged right to same-sex marriage that the State claims Plaintiffs are seeking is simply the same right that is currently enjoyed by heterosexual individuals: the right to make a public commitment to form an exclusive relationship and create a family with a partner with whom the person shares an intimate and sustaining emotional bond.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. De Leon v. Perry