Law Commons^™

The Unnecessary And Unfortunate Focus On “Animus,” “Bare Desire To Harm,” And “Bigotry” In Analyzing Opposition To Gay And Lesbian Rights, James E. Fleming

Faculty Scholarship

I am delighted to participate in this symposium on Professor Linda C. McClain’s wonderful new book, Who’s the Bigot? Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law. All of the other papers in this symposium focus on Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (and thus connect with Chapter Eight of her book, on claims of religious exemptions from protections of gay and lesbian rights), while my piece will join issue with the related Chapter Seven, on bigotry, motives, and morality in the Supreme Court’s gay and lesbian rights cases. In this brief Essay, I cannot do justice …

Response To Commentaries On Who’S The Bigot?, Linda C. Mcclain

Faculty Scholarship

One of the joys of writing a book is the chance to have its arguments and observations evaluated by creative and engaged readers. I am very grateful that the scholars included in this book symposium provided such constructive commentary on the manuscript of my book, Who’s the Bigot? Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law. One of those commentators, Professor Imer Flores, also generously hosted a wonderful live conference at which I had the chance to hear and engage with early versions of several of these commentaries. The final book, I hope, reflects improvements that grew out of …

Stretching The First Amendment: Religious Freedom And Its Constitutional Limits Within The Adoption Sector, Tracy Smith

Pepperdine Law Review

The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity.

Rethinking Religious Objections (Old-Testament Based) To Same-Sex Marriage, Doron M. Kalir

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court closed the door on one issue only to open the floodgates to another. While recognizing a constitutional right for same-sex marriage, the Court also legitimized religious objections to such unions, practically inviting complex legal challenges to its doors. In doing so, the Court also called for an "open and searching debate" on the issue. This Article seeks to trigger such debate.

For millennia, objections to same-sex marriage were cast in religious and moral terms. The Jewish Bible ("Old Testament"), conventional wisdom argues, provided three demonstrable proofs of the Bible's abhorrence of same-sex …