Law Commons^™

Hollingsworth V. Perry: United States Supreme Court Grants Certiorari To Hear The ‘Prop 8′ Case, Executive Online Editor

GGU Law Review Blog

No abstract provided.

Proposition 8 Is Unconstitutional, But Not Because The Ninth Circuit Said So: The Equal Protection Clause Does Not Support A Legal Distinction Between Denying The Right To Same-Sex Marriage And Not Providing It In The First Place, Nathan Rouse

Seattle University Law Review

In Perry v. Brown, the Ninth Circuit held that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. But in doing so, the court stepped back from the breadth of the district court’s decision. The Ninth Circuit did not address whether same-sex marriage is a fundamental constitutional right. Nor did the Ninth Circuit address whether the Equal Protection Clause categorically prevents states from limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. Instead, the Ninth Circuit reached the narrow conclusion that Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause because it withdrew a preexisting legal right from a marginalized group without any legitimate purpose. The Ninth Circuit should have held …

Think Of The Children: Advancing Marriage Equality By Renewing The Focus On Same-Sex Adoption Litigation, Jacob M. Reif

Jacob M Reif

No abstract provided.

Proposition 8: California Law After In Re Lance W. And People V. Castro, Mark Dyer Klein, Randall A. Cohen

Pepperdine Law Review

Until recently, California provided a relatively high level of constitutional protection to criminal defendants. With the passage of Proposition 8 in 1982, the California voters expressed their desire to decrease this level of protection in order to remove impediments to the effective prosecution of criminally accuseds. This comment will examine two of the major provisions of Proposition 8 and their effect on California law in light of major cases decided by the California Supreme Court in 1985.

What If No Majorities Emerge On Doma, Prop 8?, Arthur S. Leonard

Other Publications

No abstract provided.

In Tribute: M. Katherine B. Darmer, Tom Campbell, Erwin Chemerinsky, Bobby L. Dexter, Katherine M. Franke, Mark Osler, Marisa S. Cianciarulo, James L. Doti, Richard D. Fybel, Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Tiffany Chang

Faculty Scholarship

The editors of the Chapman Law Review respectfully dedicate this issue to Professor M. Katherine B. Darmer.

Marriage Rights And The Good Life: A Sociological Theory Of Marriage And Constitutional Law, Ari Ezra Waldman

Articles & Chapters

This is the first in a series of three Articles investigating the underappreciated role that the social theory of Emile Durkheim plays in the quest for the freedom to marry for gay Americans. To that end, this Article begins the discussion by examining the Durkheimian legal arguments that go unnoticed in equal protection and due process claims against marriage discrimination. This Article challenges two assumptions: first, that the most effective legal argument for marriage rights is a purely liberal one, and second, that the substance and rhetoric of liberal toleration cannot exist symbiotically in the marriage discrimination debate with a …

Imagining A Same-Sex Marriage Decision Based On Dignity: Considering Human Experience In Constitutional Law, Danieli Evans

Articles

California’s Proposition 8 allows same sex couples to join through civil unions, which grant the legal benefits afforded to married couples but denies them the official label of “marriage.” The lower court eschewed the question of whether Proposition 8 burdens any fundamental right by concluding there is not even a rational basis (the minimum standard for the constitutionality of any law) for this law, as its sole effect is to deny same sex couples the designation of marriage.

We appreciate the lower court’s caution not to extend our fundamentalrights jurisprudence beyond precedent. However, we are positioned to elaborate fundamental constitutional …