This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-12-10 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The application of this stricter standard becomes even more imperative if we consider the State's policy to protect and strengthen the institution of marriage.[24] Since marriage serves as the family's foundation[25] and since it is the state's policy to protect and strengthen the family as a basic social institution,[26] marriage should not be permitted to be dissolved at the whim of the parties. In interpreting and applying Article 41, this is the underlying rationale to uphold the sanctity of marriage. Arroyo, Jr. v. Court of Appeals[27] reflected this sentiment when we stressed:[The] protection of the basic social institutions of marriage and the family in the preservation of which the State has the strongest interest; the public policy here involved is of the most fundamental kind. In Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution there is set forth the following basic state policy: | |||||
|
2006-06-22 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Examples of accommodations in American jurisprudence also abound, including, but not limited to the U.S. Court declaring the following acts as constitutional: a state hiring a Presbyterian minister to lead the legislature in daily prayers,[45] or requiring employers to pay workers compensation when the resulting inconsistency between work and Sabbath leads to discharge;[46] for government to give money to religiously-affiliated organizations to teach adolescents about proper sexual behavior;[47] or to provide religious school pupils with books;[48] or bus rides to religious schools;[49] or with cash to pay for state-mandated standardized tests.[50] | |||||