Constitutional Law Commons^™

Why The State Cannot “Abolish Marriage”: A Partial Defense Of Legal Marriage, Gregg P. Strauss

Indiana Law Journal

Does a liberal state have a legitimate interest in defining the terms of intimate relationships? Recently, several scholars have answered this question with a no and concluded that the state should abolish marriage, along with all other categories of intimate status. While politically infeasible, these proposals offer a powerful thought experiment. In this Article, I use this thought experiment to argue that the law cannot avoid relying on intimate-status norms and has legitimate reasons to retain an intimate status like marriage.

The argument has three parts. The primary lesson of the thought experiment is that the state cannot abolish intimate …

A Marriage By Any Other Name: Why Civil Unions Should Receive Federal Recognition, Deborah A. Widiss, Andrew Koppelman

Indiana Journal of Law and Social Equality

The federal government now recognizes same-sex marriages as triggering rights and responsibilities under federal law. However, it still generally refuses to recognize alternative legal statuses—civil unions and domestic partnerships—that were created by states to serve as functional marriages. Even though all the states that created such alternative statuses now permit same-sex couples to marry, this misguided policy causes ongoing harms. Some same-sex couples who entered into alternative relationships when marriage was not an option may now lack the capacity to marry. Couples who have since married may also be hurt by the federal government’s refusal to recognize civil unions or …

Duty To Defend And The Rule Of Law, Gregory F. Zoeller

Indiana Law Journal

This Article challenges Eric Holder’s and William Pryor’s views and explains the proper role of a state attorney general when a party challenges a state statute. In short, an attorney general owes the state and its citizens, as sovereign, a duty to defend its statutes against constitutional attack except when controlling precedent so overwhelmingly shows that the statute is unconstitutional that no good-faith argument can be made in its defense. To exercise discretion more broadly, and selectively to pick and choose which statutes to defend, only erodes the rule of law. (introduction)