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

Law Commons

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

Sexuality and the Law

Maurer School of Law: Indiana University

Constitutional Law

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Law

Equality, Animus, And Expressive And Religious Freedom Under The American Constitution: Masterpiece Cakeshop And Beyond, Daniel O. Conkle Jan 2021

Equality, Animus, And Expressive And Religious Freedom Under The American Constitution: Masterpiece Cakeshop And Beyond, Daniel O. Conkle

Books & Book Chapters by Maurer Faculty

Professor Conkle's contribution to this volume, pre-print attached, is the chapter "Equality, Animus, and Expressive and Religious Freedom Under the American Constitution: Masterpiece Cakeshop and Beyond."

CHAPTER ABSTRACT: Does the First Amendment protect religious wedding vendors from anti-discrimination laws that require them to provide goods or services for same-sex weddings? The fundamental question is whether equality or religious freedom should prevail in this setting, but the complexities of American free speech and free exercise law—exacerbated by the Supreme Court’s decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop—have obscured the debate with dubious distinctions and highly contentious rationales and arguments. In this Essay, I present …


Is The Full Faith And Credit Clause Still "Irrelevant" To Same-Sex Marriage?: Toward A Reconsideration Of The Conventional Wisdom, Steve Sanders Jan 2014

Is The Full Faith And Credit Clause Still "Irrelevant" To Same-Sex Marriage?: Toward A Reconsideration Of The Conventional Wisdom, Steve Sanders

Indiana Law Journal

Essays on the Implications of Windsor and Perry


Evolving Values, Animus, And Same-Sex Marriage, Daniel O. Conkle Jan 2014

Evolving Values, Animus, And Same-Sex Marriage, Daniel O. Conkle

Indiana Law Journal

In this Essay, I contend that a Fourteenth Amendment right to same-sex marriage will emerge, and properly so, when the Supreme Court determines that justice so requires and when, in the words of Professor Alexander Bickel, the Court’s recognition of this right will “in a rather immediate foreseeable future . . . gain general assent.” I suggest that we are fast approaching that juncture, and I go on to analyze three possible justifications for such a ruling: first, substantive due process; second, heightened scrutiny equal protection; and third, rational basis equal protection coupled with a finding of illicit “animus.” I …