The plaintiff, Sarah Reynolds, concluded a homosexual marriage in late 2002 which the Ministry of the Interior refused to recognize, citing that the Marriages Act of 1959 applied only to heterosexuals. Reynolds approached FEDERAL Washingtonia for legal assistance and after several months of attempting to force the Ministry to recognize the marriage, finally instituted the action in the South Island Provincial Court in Dandridge on 21 July 2003.
Attributes | Values |
---|
rdf:type
| |
rdfs:label
| - Reynolds vs. Minister (Interior), 09-2005 CC
|
rdfs:comment
| - The plaintiff, Sarah Reynolds, concluded a homosexual marriage in late 2002 which the Ministry of the Interior refused to recognize, citing that the Marriages Act of 1959 applied only to heterosexuals. Reynolds approached FEDERAL Washingtonia for legal assistance and after several months of attempting to force the Ministry to recognize the marriage, finally instituted the action in the South Island Provincial Court in Dandridge on 21 July 2003.
|
dcterms:subject
| |
dbkwik:conworld/pr...iPageUsesTemplate
| |
Full Name
| |
Name
| |
Judges
| - Allen Howsham (CJ), J , J , J , and J
|
Keywords
| - Homosexual marriages/activities
|
date decided
| |
court
| |
prior actions
| - Supreme Court
- Court of Appeal
- SI Provincial Court
|
abstract
| - The plaintiff, Sarah Reynolds, concluded a homosexual marriage in late 2002 which the Ministry of the Interior refused to recognize, citing that the Marriages Act of 1959 applied only to heterosexuals. Reynolds approached FEDERAL Washingtonia for legal assistance and after several months of attempting to force the Ministry to recognize the marriage, finally instituted the action in the South Island Provincial Court in Dandridge on 21 July 2003. The Provincial Court found in favor of Reynolds, stating that wording of the Marriages Act was grounded in custom and that the intention of the Act is not to disallow same sex couples the ability to marry. The Minister of the Interior appealed. The Court of Appeal also found in favor of Reynolds, holding that a homosexual marriage was also liberty under Section 1 of the Bill of Rights (Chapter 2 of the Constitution). The Minister again appealed to the Supreme Court, which found in favor of the defendant, holding that it "goes against national morals" (in terms of the 'national interest' provision of Section 1) to allow such marriages.
|