Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Same-sex marriage (3)
- 135 S. Ct. 2584 (1)
- Birth certificates (1)
- Child birth (1)
- Cohabitation (1)
-
- Discrimination (1)
- Equal Protection Doctrine (1)
- Equal protection (1)
- Gay parents (1)
- Gay rights (1)
- Hypothesized purposes (1)
- Intimacy (1)
- LGBT (1)
- Marriage (1)
- Marriage equality (1)
- Marriage litigation (1)
- Masterpiece Cakeshop (1)
- Non-marital pregnancy (1)
- Obergefell v. Hodges (1)
- Pavan v. Smith (1)
- Pregnancy (1)
- Religious liberty (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Criminalizing Pregnancy, Cortney Lollar
Criminalizing Pregnancy, Cortney Lollar
Indiana Law Journal
The state of Tennessee arrested a woman two days after she gave birth and charged her with assault of her newborn child based on her use of narcotics during her preg-nancy. Tennessee’s 2014 assault statute was the first to explicitly criminalize the use of drugs by a pregnant woman. But this law, along with others like it being considered by legislatures across the country, is only the most recent manifestation of a long history of using criminal law to punish poor mothers and mothers of color for their behavior while pregnant. The purported motivation for such laws is the harm …
Dissenting From History: The False Narratives Of The Obergefell Dissents, Christopher R. Leslie
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 …
Making It Up: Lessons For Equal Protection Doctrine From The Use And Abuse Of Hypothesized Purposes In The Marriage Equality Litigation, Steve Sanders
Making It Up: Lessons For Equal Protection Doctrine From The Use And Abuse Of Hypothesized Purposes In The Marriage Equality Litigation, Steve Sanders
Articles by Maurer Faculty
To survive rational basis scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, a law must serve a governmental purpose which is at least legitimate. It is well established that legitimate purposes can sometimes be found through speculation and conjecture-that is, they may be hypothesized-in order to avoid the difficulties of identifying actual purpose or the specter of courts second-guessing legislative judgments. But hypothesized purposes can be abused, and such abuse was rampant in the states' defenses of their bans on same-sex marriage, bans which were ultimately invalidated in Obergefell v. Hodges.
This Article draws on the federal marriage litigation as a lens …
Pavan V. Smith: Equality For Gays And Lesbians In Being Married, Not Just Getting Married, Steve Sanders
Pavan V. Smith: Equality For Gays And Lesbians In Being Married, Not Just Getting Married, Steve Sanders
Articles by Maurer Faculty
No abstract provided.
Intimate Liberties And Antidiscrimination Law, Deborah A. Widiss
Intimate Liberties And Antidiscrimination Law, Deborah A. Widiss
Articles by Maurer Faculty
In assessing laws that regulate marriage, procreation, and sexual intimacy, the Supreme Court has recognized a “synergy” between guaranteeing personal liberties and advancing equality. Courts interpreting the antidiscrimination laws that govern the private sector, however, often draw artificial and untenable lines between “conduct” and “status” to preclude protections for individuals or couples who face censure because of their intimate choices. This Article exposes how these arguments have been used to justify not only discrimination against the lesbian and gay community, but also discrimination against heterosexual couples who engage in non-marital intimacy or non-marital childrearing.
During the 1980s and 1990s, several …