Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Reading Deboer And Obergefell Through The "Moral Readings Versus Originalisms" Debate: From Constitutional "Empty Cupboards" To Evolving Understandings, Linda C. Mcclain
Reading Deboer And Obergefell Through The "Moral Readings Versus Originalisms" Debate: From Constitutional "Empty Cupboards" To Evolving Understandings, Linda C. Mcclain
Faculty Scholarship
This article assesses the debate over “moral reading” and “originalist” approaches to constitutional interpretation by evaluating the momentous constitutional controversy in the United States over access by same-sex couples to civil marriage. Justice Kennedy’s landmark opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), which held that such couples have a fundamental right to marry, employed a “moral reading” in emphasizing dual forms of evolving understanding: of constitutional guarantees of equality and the “promise of liberty” and of the institution of marriage. By contrast to the dissenters, the majority rejected a static, narrow reading of the fundamental right to marry – and marriage …
Opinion Of Justice Katherine Franke In Obergefell V. Hodges, Katherine M. Franke
Opinion Of Justice Katherine Franke In Obergefell V. Hodges, Katherine M. Franke
Faculty Scholarship
Professor Jack Balkin has assembled a group of 9 scholars and advocates to write opinions in the Obergefell v. Hodges case for a forthcoming volume, What Obergefell Should Have Said (Yale University Press 2017). Balkin writes for the majority of the Court and I provide a concurrence along with a short commentary explaining my approach and reasoning. In summary, I conclude that: Laws barring same-sex couples from eligibility for licensure as civil marriages violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because they find their origin in and perpetuate notions of heterosexual supremacy, and have the aim and effect …