Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Antidisestablishmentarianism: Why Rfra Really Was Unconstitutional, Jed Rubenfeld
Antidisestablishmentarianism: Why Rfra Really Was Unconstitutional, Jed Rubenfeld
Michigan Law Review
Two months ago, the Supreme Court struck down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), handing down its most important church-state decision, and one of its most important federalism decisions, in fifty years. Through RFRA, Congress had prohibited any state actor from "substantially burden[ing] a person's exercise of religion" unless imposing that burden was the "least restrictive means" of furthering "a compelling governmental interest." RFRA was a response to Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, in which the Supreme Court abandoned the very same compelling interest test that RFRA mandated. Smith, overturning decades-old precedent, held …
Doma: An Unconstitutional Establishment Of Fundamentalist Christianity, James M. Donovan
Doma: An Unconstitutional Establishment Of Fundamentalist Christianity, James M. Donovan
Michigan Journal of Gender & Law
According to the text of the Act, DOMA's purposes are "to define and protect the institution of marriage," where marriage is defined to exclude same-sex partners. To be constitutionally valid under the Establishment Clause, this notion that heterosexual marriages require "protection" from gay and lesbian persons must spring from a secular and not religious source. This Article posits that DOMA has crossed this forbidden line between the secular and the religious. DOMA, motivated and supported by fundamentalist Christian ideology, and lacking any genuine secular goals or justifications, betrays the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.