Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

University of Michigan Law School

Marriage

2004

Sexuality and the Law

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Law

Foreword: Loving Lawrence, Pamela S. Karlan Jun 2004

Foreword: Loving Lawrence, Pamela S. Karlan

Michigan Law Review

Two interracial couples. Two cases. Two clauses. In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court struck down a Virginia statute outlawing interracial marriage. In Lawrence v. Texas, the Court struck down a Texas statute outlawing sexual activity between same-sex individuals. Each case raised challenges under both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.


Restructuring The Marital Bedroom: The Role Of The Privacy Doctrine In Advocating The Legalization Of Same-Sex Marriage, Nadine A. Gartner Jan 2004

Restructuring The Marital Bedroom: The Role Of The Privacy Doctrine In Advocating The Legalization Of Same-Sex Marriage, Nadine A. Gartner

Michigan Journal of Gender & Law

Part I of this paper examines the reasons underlying queer rights advocates' reluctance to insert privacy arguments into the case for legalizing same-sex marriage. Part II illustrates that, due to such disinclination, advocates transformed notions of privacy into concepts of liberty. Part III argues that, after the Lawrence decision, proponents of same-sex marriage can and should use privacy-based arguments to fortify their claims.


Sex Determination For Federal Purposes: Is Transsexual Immigration Via Marriage Permissible Under The Defense Of Marriage Act?, John A. Fisher Jan 2004

Sex Determination For Federal Purposes: Is Transsexual Immigration Via Marriage Permissible Under The Defense Of Marriage Act?, John A. Fisher

Michigan Journal of Gender & Law

Part I describes the federal immigration benefits available to spouses of most U.S. citizens and presents the historical and contemporary obstacles that prohibit these benefits from being extended to gays and lesbians. It then addresses DOMA's failure to define "opposite sex," and hence DOMA's failure to indicate whether post-operative transsexuals, or their partners, should be given "spousal status" under current U.S. immigration law. Part II examines traditional and modern notions of sex. It traces state legal approaches to transsexual marriage and ultimately disentangles the formalistic rhetoric that obfuscates the reasoning in those cases. In particular, Part II focuses on a …