Law Commons^™

Dissenting From History: The False Narratives Of The Obergefell Dissents, Christopher R. Leslie

Indiana Law Journal

According to a quote attributed to numerous philosophers and political leaders, “History is written by victors.”1 In the legal battle over same-sex marriage, those opposed to marriage equality have attempted to disprove this age-old adage. In response to the majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges—which held that state laws banning same-sex marriage violate the Fourteenth Amendment—each of the four dissenting Justices issued his own dissenting opinion. Every one of these dissents misrepresented the circumstances and precedent leading up to the Obergefell decision. Collectively, the Obergefell dissenters have valiantly tried to rewrite America’s legal, constitutional, and social history, all in an …

A Diachronic Approach To Bob Jones: Religious Tax Exemptions After Obergefell, Samuel D. Brunson, David J. Herzig

Indiana Law Journal

In Bob Jones University v. United States, the Supreme Court held that an entity may lose its tax exemption if it violates a fundamental public policy, even where religious beliefs demand that violation. In that case, the Court held that racial discrimination violated fundamental public policy. Could the determination to exclude same-sex in-dividuals from marriage or attending a college also be considered a violation of fundamental public policy? There is uncertainty in the answer. In the re-cent Obergefell v. Hodges case that legalized same-sex marriage, the Court asserted that LGBT individuals are entitled to “equal dignity in the eyes of …

Pavan V. Smith: Equality For Gays And Lesbians In Being Married, Not Just Getting Married, Steve Sanders

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

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 …

Non-Marital Families And (Or After?) Marriage Equality, Deborah A. Widiss

Articles by Maurer Faculty

If, as is widely expected, the Supreme Court soon holds that bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional, it is almost certain that the decision will rely heavily on the Court’s reasoning in United States v. Windsor. I strongly support marriage equality. However, a decision that amplifies Windsor’s conception of the harm caused by exclusionary marriage rules could set back efforts to secure legal recognition of, and respect for, non-marital families. That is, Windsor rectified a deep inequality in the law—that same-sex marriages were categorically denied federal recognition—but in so doing it embraced a traditional understanding of marriage as superior to …

Introduction: Invited Essays On The Implications Of Windsor And Perry

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Leveling Up After Doma, Deborah A. Widiss

Indiana Law Journal

Essays on the Implication of Windsor and Perry

Mini-Domas As Political Process Failures: The Case For Heightened Scrutiny Of State Anti-Gay Marriage Amendments, Steve Sanders

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Exposing Sex Stereotypes In Recent Same-Sex Marriage Jurisprudence, Deborah A. Widiss, Elizabeth Rosenblatt, Douglas Nejaime

Articles by Maurer Faculty

This article examines sex discrimination arguments in recent same-sex marriage cases. Since 1993, when the Hawaii Supreme Court held in Baehr v. Lewin that denying same-sex couples the right to marry could state a claim of sex discrimination, every state high court to consider the issue has rejected the claim. But many recent decisions have in fact relied upon sex-based stereotypes to justify marriage restrictions. These include claims that men and women, simply by virtue of their gender, provide distinct role models for children; that men and women play "opposite" or "complementary" roles within marriage; and that marriage is essential …