Law Commons^™

Dual Rationality Of Same-Sex Marriage: Creation Of New Rights In The Shadow Of Incomplete Contract Paradigm, Saby Ghoshray

University of Massachusetts Law Review

In an effort to reconcile the inconsistency between liberal ideals and inequitable adjudication of marriage rights amongst our citizens, this article will seek answers to these issues. By straddling the contractual confines of marriage via law and economic analysis, Part II of the article explores the contractual paradigm of marriage to examine whether the framework is independent of sexual orientation and it the deliberately incomplete nature of marriage can provide consistencies for all types of marriages. Part III examines whether the private aspiration of marriage should necessarily be linked with public consequences by evaluating the impact of marriage’s social cost …

Appellate Division, Second Department, Langan V. St. Vincent's Hospital Of New York, Christin Harris

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court, Tompkins County, Seymour V. Holcomb, Jessica Goodwin

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Windsor Beyond Marriage: Due Process, Equality & Undocumented Immigration, Anthony O'Rourke

Journal Articles

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Windsor, invalidating part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, presents a significant interpretive challenge. Early commentators have criticized the majority opinion’s lack of analytical rigor, and expressed doubt that Windsor can serve as a meaningful precedent with respect to constitutional questions outside the area of same-sex marriage. This short Article offers a more rehabilitative reading of Windsor, and shows how the decision can be used to analyze a significant constitutional question concerning the use of state criminal procedure to regulate immigration.

From Windsor’s holding, the Article distills …

Court Of Appeals Of New York, Hernandez V. Robles, Gennaro Savastano

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Two Dads Are Better Than One: The Supreme Court Of Virginia's Decision In L.F. V. Breit And Why Virginia's Assisted Conception Statute Should Allow Gay Couples To Legally Parent A Child Together, Lauren Maxey

University of Richmond Law Review

This comment examines whether gay men can have a child through a surrogacy arrangement in Virginia and whether gay men can retain parental rights through surrogacy contracts under the Virginia Assisted Conception Act. The Virginia laws affect gay males and gay females equally, but this comment addresses the issues arising with same-sex couples in the context of gay dads. Part II provides a background of surrogacy and specifically discusses surrogacy in relation to same-sex couples. Part III provides a general background of adoption and the establishment of parentage rights. Part IV describes the Assisted Conception Act,the legislative history of the …

Due Process And Equal Protection: A Constitutional Approach To Same-Sex Marriage, Ashley Musselman

Tennessee Journal of Law and Policy

On July 6, 2006, the Court of Appeals of New York decided Hernandez v. Robles. At issue in that case was whether New York's Domestic Relations Law violated the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the New York constitution by limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. The plaintiffs were members of forty-four same-marriage licenses in the State of New York. The case began as four separate lawsuits in which the plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment against "the license-issuing authorities of New York City, Albany, and Ithaca; the State Department of Health, which instructs local authorities about the issuance …

Immigration After Doma: How Equal Is Marriage Equality?, John Medeiros

Journal of Public Law and Policy

Nearly 36,000 United States citizens are currently living with their foreign-born same-sex partners. Until recently, same-gendered binational spouses have been unable to avail themselves of the immigration advantages shared by their heterosexual counterparts, largely because of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines “marriage” at the federal level as “a legal union between one man and one woman.” This dual treatment changed, however, in the summer of 2013, when the Supreme Court heard the case of United States v. Windsor, which challenged Section 3 of DOMA. In Windsor, the Court held that by restricting …

Is Full Marriage Equality For Same-Sex Couples Next? The Immediate And Future Impact Of The Supreme Court's Decisions In United States V. Windsor, Catherine Jean Archibald

Valparaiso University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Defending The Public Good And Traditional Society: Non-Scriptural Religious Objections To Same-Sex Marriage, Donald H. J. Hermann

Valparaiso University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The House Of Windsor: Accentuating The Heteronormativity In The Tax Incentives For Procreation, Anthony C. Infanti

Articles

Following the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor, many seem to believe that the fight for marriage equality at the federal level is over and that any remaining work in this area is at the state level. Belying this conventional wisdom, this essay continues my work plumbing the gap between the promise of Windsor and the reality that heteronormativity has been one of the core building blocks of our federal tax system. Eradicating embedded heteronormativity will take far more than a single court decision (or even revenue ruling); it will take years of work uncovering the subtle …

Big (Gay) Love: Has The Irs Legalized Polygamy?, Anthony C. Infanti

Articles

Within days in December, a federal judge in Utah made news by loosening that state’s criminal prohibition against polygamy and the Attorney General of North Dakota made news by opining that a party to a same-sex marriage could enter into a different-sex marriage in that state without first obtaining a divorce or annulment. Both of these opinions raised the specter of legalized plural marriage. What discussions of these opinions missed, however, is the possibility that the IRS might already have legalized plural marriage in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last June in United States v. Windsor, which …

Lgbt Families, Tax Nothings, Anthony C. Infanti

Articles

The federal tax laws have never been friendly territory for LGBT families. Before the enactment of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the federal tax laws turned a blind eye to the existence of LGBT families by tacitly embracing state law discrimination against same-sex couples. When it enacted DOMA in 1996, Congress ensured that it would be able to continue to turn a blind eye to LGBT families even if one or more states were to legally recognize families headed by same-sex couples. In a real sense, LGBT families have been, and continue to be, tax outlaws.

This overt …