Law Commons^™

Do Public Accommodations Laws Compel “What Shall Be Orthodox”?: The Role Of Barnette In 303 Creative Llc V. Eleni, Linda C. Mcclain

Faculty Scholarship

This article addresses the U.S. Supreme Court’s embrace, in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, of a First Amendment objection to state public accommodations laws that the Court avoided in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission: such laws compel governmental orthodoxy. These objections invoke West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette’s celebrated language: “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” They also …

Obergefell, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Fulton, And Public-Private Partnerships: Unleashing V. Harnessing 'Armies Of Compassion' 2.0?, Linda C. Mcclain

Faculty Scholarship

Fulton v. City of Philadelphia presented a by-now familiar constitutional claim: recognizing civil marriage equality—the right of persons to marry regardless of gender—inevitably and sharply conflicts with the religious liberty of persons and religious institutions who sincerely believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. While the Supreme Court’s 9-0 unanimous judgment in favor of Catholic Social Services (CSS) surprised Court-watchers, Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion did not signal consensus on the Court over how best to resolve the evident conflicts raised by the contract between CSS and the City of Philadelphia. This article argues that it …

Prejudice, Constitutional Moral Progress, And Being "On The Right Side Of History": Reflections On Loving V. Virginia At Fifty, Linda C. Mcclain

Faculty Scholarship

What does it mean to be on the “right” or “wrong” side of history? When Virginia’s Attorney General explained his decision not to defend Virginia’s “Defense of Marriage Law” prohibiting same-sex marriage, he asserted that it was time for Virginia to be on the “right” rather than “wrong” side of history and the law. He criticized his predecessors, who defended the discriminatory laws at issue in Brown v. Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia, and United States v. Virginia. Loving played a crucial role in the majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, even as the dissenters disputed …

Conscience Protection And Discrimination In The Republican Party Platform And Mississippi's H.B. 1523, Religious Freedom Institute, Linda C. Mcclain

Faculty Scholarship

Last May, before the Supreme Court issued its landmark opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges,Cornerstone sponsored a symposium on “Responding to Indiana RFRA and Beyond,” which focused on Governor Mike Pence’s swift “fix” of Indiana’s RFRA, after protests and threats of boycotts, to clarify that it would “not create a license to discriminate.” Particularly controversial were provisions protecting the conscience of persons operating for-profit businesses. In that symposium, I observed that public discourse frequently referred back to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, because “many people relate the current battle over protecting conscience in the context of …

Civil Marriage For Same-Sex Couples, "Moral Disapproval," And Tensions Between Religious Liberty And Equality, Linda C. Mcclain

Faculty Scholarship

In the United States and Europe, an increasing emphasis on equality has pitted rights claims against each other, raising profound philosophical, moral, legal, and political questions about the meaning and reach of religious liberty. Nowhere has this conflict been more salient than in the debate between claims of religious freedom, on one hand, and equal rights claims made on the behalf of members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community, on the other. As new rights for LGBT individuals have expanded in liberal democracies across the West, longstanding rights of religious freedom—such as the rights of religious communities …

From Outlaw To Outcast To In-Law? Contesting The Perils Of Marriage Equality, Linda C. Mcclain

Faculty Scholarship

I am pleased to offer the opening commentary in this BU Law Review Annex symposium on Professor Katherine Franke’s provocative new book, Wedlocked: The Perils of Marriage Equality. As previewed by the book’s additional subtitle, “How African Americans and Gays Mistakenly Thought the Right to Marry Would Set Them Free,” Franke aims to provide “cautionary tales” gleaned, or lessons learned, from juxtaposing post-Civil War regulation of the marriages of African Americans freed from slavery with today’s movement for marriage equality for gay men and lesbians.3 Long a skeptic about the gay community’s focus on the goal of marriage—its (in …

Federalism, Marriage, And Heather Gerken's Mad Genius, Kristin Collins

Faculty Scholarship

In her characteristically astute and engaging essay, Professor Heather Gerken offers a sensitive and sympathetic reading of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion in United States v. Windsor.¹ Her core claim is that Windsor—and the transformation of political and legal support for same-sex marriage in the United States—demonstrate how “federalism and rights work together to promote change” and, in particular, how federalism furthers the equality and liberty values of the Fourteenth Amendment.² This is a natural line of argument for Gerken to develop with respect to Windsor, as she has produced an incredible body of scholarship dedicated to what …

Brief Amici Curiae Of Iowa Professors Of Law And History, Angela Onwuachi-Willig

Faculty Scholarship

This case calls upon the State of Iowa to reaffirm its historic commitment to protecting the equality and individual liberties of all of its citizens, including its lesbian and gay male citizens. It requires this Court to interpret Iowa’s unique constitution with due respect for both text and tradition. The case must be analyzed against the backdrop of Iowa’s leadership and courage in the areas of civil rights and family law, and the willingness of its judiciary to uphold constitutional mandates in the face of efforts to legislate prejudice and discrimination.

Plaintiff-Appellees seek nothing more than to share in the …

Proof Brief Of Professors Of Family Law And Jurisprudence As Amici Curiae In Support Of Plaintiff-Appellee, Angela Onwuachi-Willig

Faculty Scholarship

The plaintiffs in this case met their burden of demonstrating the irrationality of Iowa’s statutory exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage. They did this, in part, by presenting social science research regarding the irrelevance of sexual orientation to parental ability and the psychological and social well-being of children raised by same-sex parents. In addition to arguing that the marriage exclusion is irrational, the plaintiffs also alleged that the exclusion should be subject to heightened scrutiny because it violates the fundamental right to marry and discriminates on the bases of gender and sexual orientation. Amici agree that the exclusion of same-sex …

The Evolution - Or End - Of Marriage?: Reflections On The Impasse Over Same-Sex Marriage, Linda C. Mcclain

Faculty Scholarship

The debate over legalization of same-sex marriage implicates the question of whether doing so would signal the end - or destruction - of the institution of marriage, or instead would be an appropriate evolution of marriage laws that is in keeping with the ends of marriage and with relevant public values. This essay comments on an earlier published debate on that question: Special Issue: The Evolution of Marriage, 44 Family Court Review 33-105 (2006). The essay contends that the appeal to preserving a millennia-old tradition of marriage against destruction fails to reckon with the evolution of the institution of civil …

Deliberative Democracy, Overlapping Consensus, And Same-Sex Marriage, Linda C. Mcclain

Faculty Scholarship

A pressing concern in political and constitutional theory is how to construct a model of justification in law and politics that offers methods for securing agreement and social cooperation in the face of moral pluralism. A common goal of this work is to elaborate the requirements of deliberative democracy, that is, a model of democratic self-government that "asks citizens and officials to justify public policy by giving reasons that can be accepted by those who are bound by it."' Two fundamental questions are: (1) are there any limits to the grounds to which citizens may appeal or the reasons that …

Toleration, Autonomy, And Governmental Promotion Of Good Lives: Beyond 'Empty' Toleration To Toleration As Respect, Linda C. Mcclain

Faculty Scholarship

This Article considers discontent with liberal toleration as being both too empty, because it fails to secure respect and appreciation among citizens who tolerate each other, and too robust, because it precludes government from engaging in a formative project of helping citizens to live good, self-governing lives. To meet these criticisms, the Article advances a model of toleration as respect, as distinguished from a model of empty toleration, drawing on three rationales for toleration: the anti-compulsion rationale, the jurisdictional rationale, and the diversity rationale. It defends toleration as respect against some common criticisms-emanating from feminist, civic republican, and liberal perfectionist …