Law Commons^™

Columbia Law Professor Katherine Franke Creates Public Rights/Private Conscience Project, Columbia University Public Affairs

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

New York, March 24, 2014 – Katherine Franke, director of Columbia Law School’s Center for Gender and Sexuality Law, announced today the launch of the Public Rights/Private Conscience project, a new think-tank created to address the increased use of religion-based exemptions from compliance with federal and state laws securing equality and sexual liberty.

Compulsory Sexuality, Elizabeth F. Emens

Faculty Scholarship

Asexuality is an emerging identity category that challenges the assumption that everyone is defined by some type of sexual attraction. Asexuals – those who report feeling no sexual attraction to others – constitute one percent of the population, according to one prominent study. In recent years, some individuals have begun to identify as asexual and to connect around their experiences interacting with a sexual society. Asexuality has also become a protected classification under the antidiscrimination law of one state and several localities, but legal scholarship has thus far neglected the subject.

This Article introduces asexuality to the legal literature as …

Our Fair City: A Comprehensive Blueprint For Gender And Sexual Justice In New York City, Cindy Gao, Katherine M. Franke

Faculty Scholarship

Columbia Law School’s Center for Gender & Sexuality Law offers this report to aid the de Blasio administration in evaluating the steps it can and should take to eliminate all forms of gender and sexual discrimination, and to assure gender and sexual justice in City policy and programs. After consultation with numerous groups advocating for gender and sexual justice across New York City, the Center for Gender & Sexuality Law at Columbia Law School has synthesized in this report a set of key recommendations to the de Blasio administration, all designed to eliminate a wide range of disadvantages, invisibility, violence, …

Risky Arguments In Social-Justice Litigation: The Case Of Sex Discrimination And Marriage Equality, Suzanne B. Goldberg

Faculty Scholarship

This Essay takes up the puzzle of the risky argument or, more precisely, the puzzle of why certain arguments do not get much traction in advocacy and adjudication even when some judges find them to be utterly convincing. Through a close examination of the sex discrimination argument's evanescence in contemporary marriage litigation, this Essay draws lessons about how and why arguments become risky in social-justice cases and whether they should be made nonetheless. The marriage context is particularly fruitful because some judges, advocates, and scholars find it "obviously correct" that laws excluding same-sex couples from marriage discriminate facially based on …