Law Commons^™

A Friendly Amendment, Larry Yackle

Faculty Scholarship

Heather Gerken comes to praise Justice Kennedy’s opinion for the Supreme Court in United States v. Windsor. 1 I come to praise Gerken’s valiant effort to recast the Windsor opinion along more convincing lines.2 Gerken does not propose a wholesale substitute for Justice Kennedy’s analysis. She suggests a shift in emphasis that lends Kennedy’s explanation for condemning DOMA a surprising jurisprudential significance. Where some us have seen yet another lamentable paean to the sovereignty of the states, Gerken detects the faint hint of the “nationalist” school of federalism that she and others have nurtured in recent years.3 Gerken does not …

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 …

Weather Permitting: Incrementalism, Animus, And The Art Of Forecasting Marriage Equality After U.S. V. Windsor, Jeremiah A. Ho

All Faculty Scholarship

Within LGBT rights, the law is abandoning essentialist approaches toward sexual orientation by incrementally de-regulating restrictions on identity expression of sexual minorities. Simultaneously, same-sex marriages are become increasingly recognized on both state and federal levels. This Article examines the Supreme Court’s recent decision, U.S. v. Windsor, as the latest example of these parallel journeys. By overturning DOMA, Windsor normatively revises the previous incrementalist theory for forecasting marriage equality’s progress studied by William Eskridge, Kees Waaldijk, and Yuval Merin. Windsor also represents a moment where the law is abandoning antigay essentialism by using animus-focused jurisprudence for lifting the discrimination against the …

Conferring Dignity: The Metamorphosis Of The Legal Homosexual, Noa Ben-Asher

Faculty Publications

The legal homosexual has undergone a dramatic transformation over the past three decades, culminating in United States v. Windsor, which struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). In 1986, the homosexual was a sexual outlaw beyond the protection of the Constitution. By 2013, the homosexual had become part of a married couple that is “deemed by the State worthy of dignity.” This Article tells the story of this metamorphosis in four phases. In the first, the “Homosexual Sodomite Phase,” the United States Supreme Court famously declared in Bowers v. Hardwick that there was no right …

Mobile Activism: What Your Profile Picture Says About You, Laura J. Koenig

SURGE

I know you’ve all been seeing this image all of your Facebook news feeds. All of the sudden a few weeks ago it became everyone’s profile picture. People were sharing it, along with other images, explaining why Prop. 8 and the Defense Of Marriage Act should be repealed, and were generally expressing their support of marriage equality. [excerpt]

A Visual Guide To United States V. Windsor: Doctrinal Origins Of Justice Kennedy’S Majority Opinion, Colin Starger

All Faculty Scholarship

After finding the Court had jurisdiction, Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in United States v. Windsor reached the merits and concluded that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was in violation of the Fifth Amendment. In his dissent, Justice Scalia attacked the majority’s doctrinal reasoning on the merits as “nonspecific handwaving” that invalidated DOMA “maybe on equal-protection grounds, maybe on substantive due process grounds, and perhaps with some amorphous federalism component playing a role.”

This Visual Guide is a “doctrinal map” that responds to Scalia’s accusation by charting the doctrinal origins of Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion. Specifically, the map shows how …

The Virtue Of Obscurity, Colin Starger

All Faculty Scholarship

The critics have panned Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in United States v. Windsor. Supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage have together bemoaned what may be called Kennedy’s “doctrinal obscurity” in Windsor. Doctrinal obscurity describes the opinion’s failure to justify striking down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) using any discernable accepted test for substantive due process or equal protection. Specifically, Kennedy does not ask whether DOMA burdens a right “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” nor does he identify sexual orientation as a suspect or semi-suspect classification, nor does he subject DOMA to explicit rational …

Will Supreme Court Rule On Doma?, Arthur S. Leonard

Other Publications

No abstract provided.

Windsor Products: Equal Protection From Animus, Dale Carpenter

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

The Supreme Court's opinion in United States v. Windsor has puzzled commentators, who have tended to overlook or dismiss its ultimate conclusion that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional because it arose from animus. What we have in Justice Kennedy’s opinion is Windsor Products — an outpouring of decades of constitutional development whose fountainhead is Carolene Products and whose tributaries are the gay-rights and federalism streams. This paper presents the constitutional anti-animus principle, including what constitutes animus, why it offends the Constitution, and how the Supreme Court determines it is present. The paper also discusses why the Court was …

Prop 8, Doma Defenders Rely On Federalism, Arthur S. Leonard

Other Publications

No abstract provided.

"Till Death (Or Doma) Does Us Part": How Doma Imposes An Unconstitutional Classifying And Coercive Condition On Federal Funding In The Wake Of Massachusetts V. United States Department Of Health And Human Services, Erin Bender

Law Student Publications

Part II of this Note provides a short legislative history of DOMA and an overview of Spending Clause jurisprudence. Part III provides an overview of Judge Tauro‘s opinion in Massachusetts. Finally, Part IV of this Note analyzes Section Three of DOMA under the proposed classifying/coercive condition approach to the Spending Clause and concludes that Section Three of DOMA would be unconstitutional as either type of condition.

Doma And Diffusion Theory: Ending Animus Legislation Through A Rational Basis Approach, David J. Herzig

Law Faculty Publications

Same-sex couple rights are the topic of much discussion and debate. There are court challenges to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) as well as proposed marriage statutes. The message and the structure for the recognition of same-sex rights need to be modified. This Article proposes applying, for the first time in the area, modern sociology theory, specifically Diffusion Theory, to change how the message is delivered. Using Diffusion Theory to change the message frame will change judicial decisions. By using the backdrop of the Florida adoption statute, a comparison between the successful challenges to the Florida …

Medical Rights For Same-Sex Couples And Rainbow Families, Anisa Mohanty

Law Student Publications

The present state of the law regarding medical rights for same-sex couples and their families is highly inconsistent. A handful of states permit same-sex marriage. Another handful of states recognize same-sex marriages from other states, allow civil unions with state-level spousal rights for same-sex couples, or extend some or nearly all state-level spousal rights to unmarried couples in domestic partnerships. With these widely disparate levels of recognition, it becomes difficult for same-sex couples to navigate their options and rights when a loved one—a partner or child—has a medical emergency or is in the hospital. In Part II, this Comment will …

Doma And The Happy Family: A Lesson In Irony, Rhonda Wasserman

Articles

In enacting the Defense of Marriage Act, Congress chose to protect heterosexual marriage because of its “deep and abiding interest in encouraging responsible procreation and child-rearing. Simply put, government has an interest in marriage because it has an interest in children.” Ironically, DOMA may harm, rather than protect, the interests of some children – i.e., the children of gay and lesbian couples.

Both state and federal law reflect the belief that children are better off being raised by two parents in an intact family. This belief is reflected in the marital presumption of paternity, which presumes that a married woman’s …

Sexual Politics And Social Change, Darren Lenard Hutchinson

UF Law Faculty Publications

The Article examines the impact of social movement activity upon the advancement of GLBT rights. It analyzes the state and local strategy that GLBT social movements utilized to alter the legal status of sexual orientation and sexuality following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick. Successful advocacy before state and local courts, human rights commissions, and legislatures fundamentally shifted public opinion and laws regarding sexual orientation and sexuality between Bowers and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lawrence v. Texas. This altered landscape created the "political opportunity" for the Lawrence ruling and made the opinion relatively "safe".

Currently, GLBT rights …

Doma And The Internal Revenue Code, Patricia A. Cain

Faculty Publications

The purpose of this article is to make the argument that I think needs to be made: DOMA, as applied to the Internal Revenue Code as a whole, is unconstitutional because it lacks a rational basis.

Let me explain, up front, that my constitutional argument about § 3 has nothing to do with whether Congress has the power to enact such legislation. Congress, after all, does have the power to levy taxes and control our borders. Thus, Congress should have the power to determine which married couples can file a joint return and which non-citizen spouses can be given preferential …

Afterword – Straightness As Property: Back To The Future-Law And Status In The 21st Century, Symposium: Liberalism And Property Rights, Berta E. Hernández-Truyol, Shelbi D. Day

UF Law Faculty Publications

As is evident from the other works in this Symposium, throughout history in both the United States and the greater Western World, status-based exclusion of individuals and groups from property rights has been central to the existence of political and social hierarchies. Specifically, exclusion based on status — whether it be nationality, culture, race, sex or sexuality — has plagued our history and has been integral in the formation and development of both constitutional and property law regimes. Consequently, both regimes are at best uneven in the grant and distribution of rights and benefits.

A forward-looking examination of the link …

Polygamy And Same-Sex Marriage, David L. Chambers

Articles

In the American federal system, state governments bear the responsibility for enacting the laws that define the persons who are permitted to marry. The federal government, throughout our history, has accepted these definitions and built upon them, fixing legal consequences for those who validly marry under state law. Only twice in American history has Congress intervened to reject the determinations that states might make about who can marry. The first occasion was in the late nineteenth century when Congress enacted a series of statutes aimed at the Mormon Church, prohibiting polygamy in the Western territories and punishing the Church and …

Marriage Today: Legal Consequences For Same Sex And Opposite Sex Couples, David L. Chambers

Articles

Laws that treat married persons in a different manner than they treat single persons permeate nearly every field of social regulation in this country -- taxation, otrts, evidence, social welfare, inheritance, adoption, and on and on.

What If? The Legal Consequences Of Marriage And The Legal Needs Of Lesbian And Gay Male Couples, David L. Chambers

Articles

Laws that treat married persons in a different manner than they treat single persons permeate nearly every field of social regulation in this country - taxation, torts, evidence, social welfare, inheritance, adoption, and on and on. In this article I inquire into the patterns these laws form and the central benefits and obligations that marriage entails, a task few scholars have undertaken in recent years. I have done so because same-sex couples, a large group not previously eligible to marry under the laws of any American jurisdiction, may be on the brink of securing the opportunity to do so in …