Constitutional Law Commons^™

Family Law's Challenge To Religious Liberty, Raymond C. O'Brien

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

Over time, the definition of family has shifted from being premised upon kinship to legal status. In modern times, family structure is based more upon function than form, seeking to derive its status as a family from the subjective intent of its members to act as a family. Many early settlers in the colonial territories came to America to escape religious persecution and practice their own religion.

For that reason, biblical language and religious doctrine formed the basis for common law, statutes, and practice. Today, there remains the notion among many Americans that the law represents a divine plan and …

Homosexuals, Equal Protection, And The Guarantee Of Fundamental Rights In The New Decade: An Optimist’S Quasi-Suspect View Of Recent Events And Their Impact On Heightened Scrutiny For Sexual Orientation-Based Discrimination, John Nicodemo

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Why Obama’S Words Didn’T Go Far Enough, Sonja R. West, Dahlia Lithwick

Popular Media

When President Obama announced his support of same-sex marriage, he talked broadly about “equality” and “fairness.” He spoke of “opposing discrimination against gays and lesbians” and making sure that nobody is treated as “less than full citizens when it comes to their legal rights.” It was a powerful moment—historic and emotional. In the Aaron Sorkin version, the orchestra would have soared at this point as the supporting cast members exchanged teary-eyed yet knowing nods.

But then President Obama described how these rights should be protected and the music stopped with a squawk. Same-sex marriage, he said, is not in fact …

Are Same-Sex Marriages Really A Threat To Religious Liberty?, Eric Alan Isaacson

Eric Alan Isaacson

Some have contended that same-sex couples' marriages pose a grave danger to the religious liberty of social conservatives whose faith traditions do not bless same-sex unions. Those who oppose recognizing same-sex couples' right to marry have even contended that their clergy and churches might be subject to hate-crime prosecutions and loss of tax-exempt status if same-sex couples may lawfully marriage. This article seeks to answer those objections, pointing out that many limitations on religious marriages -- such as Roman Catholic doctrine barring remarriage by those who are civilly divorced -- parallel religious rules similarly limiting or withholding recognition from same-sex …

The Ninth Circuit's Perry Decision And The Constitutional Politics Of Marriage Equality, William N. Eskridge

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In Perry v. Brown, the Ninth Circuit ruled that California’s Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause. Reacting to the state supreme court’s recognition of marriage equality for lesbian and gay couples, Proposition 8 was a 2008 voter initiative that altered the state constitution to “restore” the “traditional” understanding of civil marriage to exclude same-sex couples. The major theme of the Yes-on-Eight campaign was that the state should not deem lesbian and gay unions to be “marriages” because schoolchildren would then think that lesbian and gay relationships are just as good as straight “marriages.”

Proposition 8 intended that gay …

I Do. Is That Okay With You?: A Look At How Most States Are Circumventing The Full Faith And Credit Clause And Equal Protection Clause To Not Recognize Legal Same-Sex Marriages From Other States And Its Effect On Society, Rebecca Hameroff

Florida A & M University Law Review

Due to statutes, bans, and the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, states do not have to recognize legal same-sex marriages from sister states that recognize same-sex marriage. This paper examines the denial of the fundamental right to marriage for same-sex couples, the violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution by not recognizing same-sex marriages legally performed in other states. It starts by looking at the impact these practices have on same-sex couples and the toll it …

Wedlocked, Mary P. Byrn, Morgan L. Holcomb

Faculty Scholarship

For as long as marriage has existed in the United States, divorce has been its necessary opposite. So strong is the need for divorce that the Supreme Court has suggested it is a fundamental right, and every state in the country allows access to no-fault divorce. For opposite-sex couples, legally ending their marriage is possible as a matter of right. For married same-sex couples, however, state DoMAs (Defense of Marriage Acts) have been a stumbling block – preventing access to divorce in some states. Same-sex couples in numerous states are being told by attorneys and judges that they cannot terminate …

Regulating At The Margins: Non-Traditional Kinship And The Legal Regulation Of Intimate And Family Life, Courtney Megan Cahill

Scholarly Publications

This Article offers a new theory of how the law attempts to control intimate and family life and uses that theory to argue why certain laws might be unconstitutional. Specifically, it contends that by regulating non-traditional relationships and practices that receive little or no constitutional protection— same-sex relationships, domestic partnerships, de facto parenthood, and nonsexual procreation—the law is able to express its normative ideals about all marriage, parenthood, and procreation. By regulating non-traditional kinship, then, the law can be aspirational in a way that the Constitution would ordinarily prohibit and can attempt to channel all of us in ways that …

Article Iii Double-Dipping: Proposition 8'S Sponsors, Blag, And The Government's Interest, Suzanne B. Goldberg

Faculty Scholarship

A major procedural question looms over the two marriage cases currently before the U.S. Supreme Court: Do the parties who seek to defend the marriage-recognition bans have standing to advance their views? The question arises because the governments that would have Article III standing, by virtue of their enforcement authority, are not defending their own laws. Instead, in Hollingsworth v. Perry, private parties are attempting to take up the state government’s mantle to de fend Proposition 8, which withdrew marriage rights from same-sex couples in California. And in United States v. Windsor, five members of the House of …