Waters v. Ricketts

Waters v. Ricketts: A case about Nebraska constitutional amendment prohibiting marriage of same-sex couples in violation of the Fourteen Amendment.

By Diana Shepherd, CDFA®Updated: June 01, 2020

Waters v. Ricketts: A case about Nebraska constitutional amendment prohibiting the marriage of same-sex couples in violation of the Fourteen Amendment.

By Laura Morgan, Family Law Consultant

Nebraska constitutional amendment prohibiting marriage of same-sex couples and not recognizing valid out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples was gender discrimination in violation Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process and equal protection; law created classification based on gender by linking eligibility to marry, or to have marriage recognized, to genders of individuals seeking to marry, state’s authority over domestic relations matters was subject to constitutional limits, state’s alleged interest in channeling children into stable relationships was underinclusive in allowing heterosexual people to have and rear children in unstable or abusive situations, while preventing committed and stable same-sex couples from adopting and providing loving homes to children, intentionally childless couples were permitted to marry, same-sex couples would be denied survivor benefits, same-sex couples could not adopt, and non-adoptive parent had no legal relationship to child being jointly raised.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/257402307/8-14-cv-00356-54-Nebraska-Memo-and-Order

Laura W. Morgan is the owner and operator at Family Law Consulting in Charlottesville, Virginia.Laura is available for consultation, brief writing and research on family law issues throughout the country. She can be reached through her website. www.famlawconsult.com

Related Articles

The Conundrum of Same-Sex Divorce in Florida

As same-sex couples continue to fight for the right to marry in many U.S. States, another major challenge is facing gay couples wishing to legally terminate their union. Kathleen Vacca is a recent example of a Florida resident being denied a divorce because the state does not recognize the legitimacy her same-sex marriage.

Same-Sex Marriage – and Divorce

Despite the inclement weather, the hundreds of thousands of participants and spectators at the annual Pride March in New York City were ecstatic following last week’s landmark 5-4 decision to legalize same-sex marriage by the US Supreme Court. North of the border, pouring rain during the 35th annual Pride parade in Toronto couldn’t dim the crowd’s excitement that American same-sex couples would now have the same freedom to marry that Canadian same-sex couples now have enjoyed for a decade.

Categories:

Published on: April 09, 2015

About the Author

Diana Shepherd, CDFA®

Diana Shepherd has over 30 years of experience as a marketing, branding, SEO, copywriting, editing, and publishing expert. As Content Director for Family Lawyer Magazine, Divorce Magazine, and Divorce Marketing Group, she oversees all corporate content development and frequently creates SEO-friendly videos, podcasts, and copy for family law and financial firms. The Co-Founder of Divorce Magazine and Divorce Marketing Group, Diana is an award-winning editor, published author, and a nationally recognized expert on divorce, remarriage, finance, and stepfamily issues. She has written hundreds of articles geared towards both family law professionals and divorcing people, and she has both performed and taught on-page SEO for 20+ years. Diana spent eight years as the Marketing Director for the Institute for Divorce Financial Analysts® (IDFA®), and she has been a Certified Divorce Financial Analyst® since 2006. While at IDFA, she wrote, designed, and published The IDFA Marketing Guide, and she also created seminars for CDFA professionals to present to family lawyers (approved for CLE), as well as to separated and divorcing individuals. She has represented both DMG and IDFA at industry conferences and events across North America, and she has given marketing as well as divorce financial seminars at many of those conferences.

Waters v. Ricketts