Law Commons^™

Gay Panic And The Case For Gay Shield Laws, Kelly Strader, Molly Selvin, Lindsey Hay

Kelly Strader

In a highly publicized “gay panic” case, Brandon McInerney shot and killed Larry King in their middle school classroom. King was a self-identified gay student who sometimes wore jewelry and makeup to school and, according to those who knew him, was possibly transgender. Tried as an adult for first-degree murder, McInerney asserted a heat of passion defense based upon King’s alleged sexual advances. The jury deadlocked, with a majority accepting McInerney’s defense. Drawing largely upon qualitative empirical research, this article uses the Larry King murder case as a prism though which to view the doctrinal, theoretical, and policy bases of …

The Myth Of Strict Scrutiny For Fundamental Rights, James E. Fleming, Linda C. Mcclain

Faculty Scholarship

Dissenting in Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Scalia stated that, under the Due Process Clause, if an asserted liberty is a "fundamental right," it triggers "strict scrutiny" that almost automatically invalidates any statute restricting that liberty. For strict scrutiny requires that the challenged statute, to be upheld, must further a "compelling governmental interest" and must be "necessary" or "narrowly tailored" to doing so. Scalia also wrote that if an asserted liberty is not a fundamental right, it is merely a "liberty interest" that triggers rational basis scrutiny that is so deferential that the Court all but automatically upholds the statute in …

The Ninth Circuit’S Treatment Of Sexual Orientation: Defining “Rational Basis Review With Bite”, Ian C. Bartrum

Scholarly Works

When the Ninth Circuit handed down Witt v. Department of the Air Force, President Obama and then-Solicitor General Kagan declined to take an appeal to the Supreme Court. At the time, it seemed that most advocates of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” believed that the administration made that decision because it was afraid the Supreme Court would reverse the Ninth Circuit. If that fear was perhaps well-founded in 2009, it is certainly less so now. In the wake of SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Laboratories, as well as recent District Court decisions, opponents of federal constitutional protection for gay people …

The Sneetches As An Allegory For The Gay Rights Struggle: Three Prisms, Peter Nicolas

Articles

In this essay, I invoke both versions of Dr. Seuss's The Sneetches as an allegory for the modern struggle for gay rights in the United States viewed through three different prisms. The first and most obvious of these prisms is the battle between the heterosexual majority and the gay minority represented by the two groups of Sneetches. Members of the majority seek to distinguish themselves with markers of social acceptance such as marriage, parenting, and military service, as well as access to certain other markers of social acceptance, including the ability to donate blood and become members in private organizations …

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

Law Student Publications

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 …

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 …

Constitutional Standing In Singapore: A Comment On Tan Eng Fong V Attorney General, Shubhankar Dam

Shubhankar Dam

No abstract provided.

Why Equal Protection Trumps Federalism In The Same-Sex Marriage Cases, Erin Ryan

Erin Ryan

Federalism is once again at the forefront of the Supreme Court’s most contentious cases this Term. The cases attracting most attention are the two same-sex marriage cases that were argued in March. Facing intense public sentiment on both sides of the issue and the difficult questions they raise about the boundary between state and federal authority, some justices openly questioned whether to just defer to the political process. And while this is often a wise prudential approach in review of contested federalism-sensitive policymaking, it’s exactly the wrong course of action when the matter under review is an individual right. This …

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.

A Visual Guide To United States V. Windsor: Doctrinal Origins Of Justice Kennedy’S Majority Opinion, Colin Starger

All Faculty Scholarship

After finding the Court had jurisdiction, Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in United States v. Windsor reached the merits and concluded that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was in violation of the Fifth Amendment. In his dissent, Justice Scalia attacked the majority’s doctrinal reasoning on the merits as “nonspecific handwaving” that invalidated DOMA “maybe on equal-protection grounds, maybe on substantive due process grounds, and perhaps with some amorphous federalism component playing a role.”

This Visual Guide is a “doctrinal map” that responds to Scalia’s accusation by charting the doctrinal origins of Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion. Specifically, the map shows how …

Save Our Children: Overcoming The Narrative That Gays And Lesbians Are Harmful To Children, Anthony S. Niedwiecki

Publications

This paper focuses on how gay rights activists had no real choice but to use the court system to advance marriage rights for same-sex couples because they were unable to use the political process to effectively rebut the claim that gays and lesbian were harmful to children. Part I begins with an overview of the ways in which the initiative process has been used to limit gay rights and prevent marriage equality. It then details how, in contrast to the political process, courts have been more receptive to advancing marriage rights for same-sex couples. Part II details Walter Fisher's narrative …

Why Equal Protection Trumps Federalism In The Same-Sex Marriage Cases, Erin Ryan

Scholarly Publications

Federalism is once again at the forefront of the Supreme Court’s most contentious cases this Term. The cases attracting most attention are the two same-sex marriage cases that were argued in March. Facing intense public sentiment on both sides of the issue and the difficult questions they raise about the boundary between state and federal authority, some justices openly questioned whether to just defer to the political process. And while this is often a wise prudential approach in review of contested federalism-sensitive policymaking, it’s exactly the wrong course of action when the matter under review is an individual right. This …

Windsor Products: Equal Protection From Animus, Dale Carpenter

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

The Supreme Court's opinion in United States v. Windsor has puzzled commentators, who have tended to overlook or dismiss its ultimate conclusion that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional because it arose from animus. What we have in Justice Kennedy’s opinion is Windsor Products — an outpouring of decades of constitutional development whose fountainhead is Carolene Products and whose tributaries are the gay-rights and federalism streams. This paper presents the constitutional anti-animus principle, including what constitutes animus, why it offends the Constitution, and how the Supreme Court determines it is present. The paper also discusses why the Court was …

Liberty V. Elections: Minority Rights And The Failure Of Direct Democracy, David A. Schultz

David A Schultz

Majority rule and special interest politics can threaten individual rights. Madisonian democracy addresses this threat through constitutional mechanisms such as a bill of rights, checks and balances, and representation. The Progressive Era reforms of initiative, referendum, and recall were adopted as a means to further democracy and break entrenched politics captured by interest groups. Yet it is not clear if these experiments in direct democracy have protected rights, let alone confined special interest politics. Using the 2012 Minnesota constitutional amendments on marriage and voter ID as examples,, this paper argues that elections, constitutional politics, and the use of initiative and …

Don't Ask, Don't Tell: Employment Discrimination As A Means For Social Cleansing, E. Gary Spitko

Faculty Publications

In December 2010, President Barack Obama signed into law the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010,” which provided for repeal of the policy prohibiting gay people from serving openly in the military, after consideration of a Department of Defense review on the implementation of such a repeal. This article examines the history of the exclusion of openly gay people from military service in the United States from the early twentieth century up until the time of the repeal. The author concludes from this review that the dominant purpose of the military’s exclusion of openly gay people was to …

There Is But One Sword That Defends The Rights Of Man- Bringing Lgbt Rights Out Of The Closet, Jonathan M. Bhagan

Jonathan m Bhagan

Introduction. International norms of human rights are a powerful force for interpreting, protecting and growing rights on the domestic plane. Courts throughout the Commonwealth already look to international norms to flesh out rights, whether they are found in the constitutional jurisprudence of other common law states in Treaties or Treaty based case law. While some schools of jurisprudence claim that International and Domestic law are two separate spheres , throughout the paper it will be shown that judges have consistently looked to foreign and International Law as inspiration and support for their decisions in key human rights cases. This trend …

National Report: United Kingdom, Kenneth Mck. Norrie

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

No abstract provided.

National Report: Colombia, Universidad De Los Andes Public Interest Law Group

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

No abstract provided.

Is False Imputation Of Being Gay, Lesbian, Or Bisexual Still Defamatory? The Arkansas Case, Jay Barth

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

Falsely identifying someone as lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB) has historically been defamation per se in American courts. In modern times, however, courts have become conflicted as to whether a false imputation of a person as LGB is defamatory. Accordingly, this article examines the roots of defamation law as it relates to sexual minorities, and then examines questions regarding the defamatory status of false identification of another as LGB, whether community or national standards should drive such a determination, and finally, to what degree is any legal recognition of harm to reputation for being LBG a perpetuation of the status …

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell," The Supreme Court, And Lawrence The "Laggard", Audrey K. Hagedorn

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Animus Thick And Thin: The Broader Impact Of The Ninth Circuit Decision In Perry V. Brown, Nan D. Hunter

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This essay is a response to an article by: Eskridge Jr., William N., The Ninth Circuit's Perry Decision and the Constitutional Politics of Marriage Equality, in 64 Stan. L. Rev. Online 93 (2012).

This essay examines the impact of Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2012), the first appellate federal court decision on the constitutional validity of marriage exclusion laws. The author argues that the major contribution of the Perry decision is to illuminate the meaning of animus, a term that is sharply contested in Equal Protection jurisprudence, and to explicate its relationship to standards of …

Queer (In)Justice: Mapping New Gay (Scholarly) Agendas, Giovanna Shay, J. Kelly Strader

Faculty Scholarship

The 2011 book Queer (In)Justice surveys involvement of sexual minorities in all phases of the what the authors term the "criminal legal system." It examines the treatment of LGBTQ people as criminal defendants, victims, and prisoners. Queer (In)Justice moves beyond the typical focus of gay rights activists and scholars in the criminal law area to address the everyday treatment of LGBTQ people by police, prosecutors, courts, and corrections authorities. Relying heavily on prison abolitionist movement thinking, the book calls into question reliance on criminal punishment as a means of combating violence against LGBTQ people. Although largely anecdotal, and sometimes over-heated …

Ignoring Human Rights For Homosexuals: Gross Violations Of International Obligations In Cameroon, Erica Nordberg

American University International Law Review

No abstract provided.

Dating The State: The Moral Hazards Of Winning Gay Rights, Katherine M. Franke

Faculty Scholarship

On August 1, 2009, a masked man dressed in black carrying an automatic weapon stormed into Beit Pazi in Tel Aviv, the home of the Aguda, the National Association of GLBT in Israel. He opened fire on a group of gay and lesbian teenagers who were meeting in the basement for "Bar-Noar," or "Youth Bar," killing two people and wounding at least ten others. This terrible act of violence attracted immediate national and international attention and condemnation. President Simon Peres declared the next day:

[T]he shocking murder carried out in Tel Aviv yesterday against youths and young people is a …

Standing At The Crossroads: A Review Of The Novel Issues Of Standing At Play In Perry V. Schwarzenegger, Natasha Mennecke

Natasha Mennecke

This piece examines whether the Proponents of Proposition 8 have standing to appeal the district court's decision invalidating the measure. The paper examines the question of federal Article III standing and whether California Law creates a Liberty Interest sufficient for federal standing.

Who Is A Human Rights Defender? An Essay On Sexual And Reproductive Rights Defenders, Cynthia Soohoo, Diana Hortsch

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

Disgust And The Problematic Politics Of Similarity, Courtney Megan Cahill

Michigan Law Review

Martha Nussbaum's latest book, From Disgust to Humanity: Sexual Orientation & Constitutional Law, could not have come at a more opportune time in the history of gay rights in the United States. All signs point to progress toward "humanity," from same-sex couples' successful bids for marriage equality in a handful of states to the public's increasing acceptance of the prospect of gays and lesbians serving openly in the military. Even if recent cognitive science research indicates that same-sex relationships provoke more than a little disgust in some people, landmark marriage-equality victories in a few states suggest that the law is …

Making Law Accessible: Gay Rights, Abortion, And Gun Control Through A Civic Organizing Lens, Palma Joy Strand

palma joy strand

In this article, I offer a civic view of social change. This view emphasizes the role of citizens and describes the connection between civic bonds and the emergence of new, sustainable legal doctrine. I use three current sociolegal movements—gay rights, abortion rights, and gun control—as illustrations, and I focus on non-lawyer individuals and civic organizing within those movements.

Gay Rights And Lefts: Rights Critique And Distributive Analysis For Real Law Reform, Libby Adler

Libby S. Adler

For the last decade and more, the law reform agenda on behalf of sexual minorities in the United States has been dominated by the same-sex marriage campaign and, to a lesser extent, the repeal of Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell. Gay rights advocates for both equality-seeking efforts, while locked in battle with culture warriors from the right, also have been subject to protest and criticism from the left for their powerful normalizing impulses and identitarian rights-orientation. Gay rights advocates nonetheless have persevered in their quest for equality, scarcely acknowledging the criticism from queer and other non-mainstreaming or dissident voices, perhaps unable to …

Harvey Milk, Jane Roe, And James Brady: The Contribution Of The Civic To The Evolution Of Law, Palma Joy Strand

palma joy strand

The lack of civility in political discourse and asserted negative effects of that lack of civility have recently drawn an increasing amount of popular attention. At the same time, legal scholars have characterized law—especially constitutional law articulated by the Supreme Court—as the result of a dialogue between the Court and the people. This article links these discussions with a unified explanation of how civic discourse among ordinary citizens in the form of personal story-telling and story-listening grounds stable and sustainable law—especially law in areas of evolving social norms. The article uses three contemporary sociolegal movements—gay rights, abortion rights, and gun …