DOCSLIB.ORG

Lawyering for Marriage Equality

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lawyering for Marriage Equality LAWYERING FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY Scott L. Cummings Douglas NeJaime Critics of litigation seeking to establish the right of same-sex couples to marry argue that it has produced a backlash undercutting the movement for marriage equality. In this account, movement lawyers emerge as agents of backlash: naively turning to the courts ahead of public opinion, ignoring more productive political alternatives, and ultimately hurting the very cause they purport to advance by securing a court victory that mobilizes opponents to repeal it. This Article challenges the backlash thesis through a close analysis of the Californiacase, which contradicts the portrait of movement lawyers as unsophisticatedrights crusaders and casts doubt on the causal claim that court decisions upholding same-sex couples' right to marry have harmed the movement. INTRO DUCTIO N ....................................................................................................................1236 I. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: THE BACKLASH DEBATE ............................................. 1242 II. CASE STUDY: THE CALIFORNIA MARRIAGE EQUALITY MOVEMENT ....................... 1247 A. The Lessons of Litigation Past: Before California ............................................. 1248 B. Litigation Avoidance: The Legislative Pursuit of Domestic Partnership ........ 1251 1. After Hawaii: The California No-Litigation Strategy .............................. 1251 2. Legislative Incrementalism and Countermobilization: From Domestic Partner Registry to Proposition 22 ............................................ 1256 * Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law. ** Associate Professor of Law, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles. We are enormously grateful to Nan Hunter and Brad Sears for the invitation to participate in the UCLA conference, "Sexuality and Gender Law: Assessing the Field, Envisioning the Future." For their helpful comments, we thank Rick Abel, Mary Bonauto, Mary Anne Case, David Cruz, Bill Eskridge, Naomi Goldberg, Suzanne Goldberg, Lani Guinier, Anna-Maria Marshall, Melissa Murray, Clare Pastore, Nancy Polikoff, Jane Schacter, and Reva Siegel. We also benefited from the feedback of participants at the Southern California Review of Law and Social Justice Proposition 8 Symposium and the Clinical Theory Workshop at New York Law School. This Article would not have been possible without the dedication of the UCLA Law Review editors, especially Brett Bissett, Benjamin Friedman, Long Kalaydjian, Seth Korman, Priscilla Parrett, Darcy Pottle, and Alyssa Simon. We were, in addition, fortunate to receive excellent research assistance from Tom Boone and Laura Cadra at Loyola's William M. Rains Law Library and from the staff at UCLA's Hugh and Hazel Darling Law Library. Finally, we are deeply indebted to the advocates whose work to advance marriage equality in California inspired this project and whose generous assistance was crucial to its completion. 1235 1236 57 UCLA LAW REVIEW 1235 (2010) 3. Stepping Stones: Planning for Marriage by Winning Dom estic Partnership ..................................................................................1262 C. The Best Laid Plans: Litigating Marriage by Necessity ....................................1269 1. Cooler Heads Prevail: Rejecting Litigation (Again) by Consensus ........1269 2. Litigating in Defense of Domestic Partnership .........................................1271 3. Game Change: Marriage Equality in San Francisco .................................1274 4. Winning Despite Themselves: In re MarriageCases .................................1281 D. On the Sidelines: Proposition 8, Perry, and the Plan for 2012 ........................1293 III.ANALYSIS: THE LIMITS OF BACKLASH ........................................................................1304 A. Control Over Ends and Means ...........................................................................1304 1. Constructing the Agenda: The Path to Marriage .....................................1304 2. Controlling the Tactics: Litigation Triggers and M ovem ent Responses ..................................................................................1307 a. C auses of Litigation .............................................................................1308 (1) C ounterm obilization .........................................................................1308 (2) C ontingency ......................................................................................1309 (3) C ontestation ......................................................................................1309 b. M echanism s of Control .......................................................................1310 (1) D irect Intervention ...........................................................................1310 (2) R em onstration ...................................................................................1311 (3) Indirect Involvem ent ........................................................................1311 B. Multidimensional Advocacy ..............................................................................1312 1. Legislation to Enhance Litigation ..............................................................1312 2. Litigation to Enhance Legislation ..............................................................1314 3. Litigation as a Legislative Shield ................................................................1314 4. Public Education ..........................................................................................1315 5. Beyond (But Not Without) Litigation ......................................................1317 C. Backlash Mechanics and the Causation Problem .............................................1318 1. Judicial Exceptionalism ? .............................................................................1318 2. Baselines and M etrics ..................................................................................1325 CONCLUSION: TOWARD ATHEORY OF MOVEMENT LAWYERING-IN THE FACE O F B ACKLASH .......................................................................................................................1327 INTRODUCTION The movement to achieve marriage equality for same-sex couples has been called "the last great civil rights struggle."' The analogy to the civil rights movement for racial equality in the 1950s and 1960s is deliberately asserted by activists and, in some respects, quite apt.2 Both groups comprise a minority of the population in the United States and have been subject to systematic 1. ADVOCATE, Dec. 2008 (quoting the cover). 2. See Craig J. Konnoth, Note, Created in Its Image: The Race Analogy, Gay Identity, and Gay Litigation in the 1950s-1970s, 119 YALE L.J.316 (2009). Lawyering for Marriage Equality 1237 discrimination. And, crucially, both have turned to courts to protect rights thwarted by majoritarian political institutions. As one result of civil rights liti- gation, there is a close legal precedent for marriage equality activists: Loving v. Virginia,' the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision that overturned prohibitions on interracial marriage.4 But beyond Loving, the two movements have shared a deeper history in which lawyers have been important leaders and litigation has loomed large as a strategy for policy reform. Much like the iconic role played by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) in the movement for racial equality, lawyers from elite public interest organizations-- Lambda Legal, the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual & Transgender (LGBT) Project, the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), and Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD)-have been pivotal in shaping the path toward marriage equality. Critics of the civil rights analogy are quick to point out the historical, political, and legal differences between the marriage equality and civil rights movements,' summed up in the wry phrase "gay is not the new black."6 Yet the pull of the civil rights framework is strong, not just as a way of legitimizing the marriage equality movement's use of litigation, but also as a way of judging it. For scholars of law and social change, the emergence of marriage equality as a seminal post-civil rights progressive legal reform movement has provided an opportunity to test the contemporary validity of theories based on the now- dated civil rights paradigm. The result has been a renewed-and vigorous- debate over the promise and perils of social change litigation, with the marriage equality movement at the center. This debate has revolved around the explanatory power of the "backlash thesis"--the proposition that litigation does more harm than good for social change movements by producing countermobilization that makes reform goals more difficult to achieve. The thesis is most closely identified with two scholars, University of Chicago political scientist Gerald Rosenberg and Harvard legal 3. 388 U.S. 1 (1967). 4. On the power of the antimiscegenation analogy, see Stephen Clark, Same-Sex but Equal: Reformulating the Miscegenation Analogy, 34 RUTGERS L.J. 107 (2002); Andrew Koppelman, Same-Sex Marriage and Public Policy: The MiscegenationPrecedents, 16 QuINNiPIAc L. REV. 105 (1996); Catherine Smith, Queer as Black Folk?, 2007 WIS. L. REV. 379; James Trosino, American Wedding: Same-Sex Marriage and the Miscegenation Analogy, 73 B.U. L. REV. 93 (1993). 5. See Randall Kennedy, Marriage and the Smuggle for Gay, Lesbian, and Black Liberation, 2005 UTAH L. REV. 781, 792. 6. Irene Monroe, Gay Is Not the New Black, HUFFINGTON POST, Dec. 16, 2008,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bonauto, Mary (B
    Bonauto, Mary (b. 1961) by Claude J. Summers Mary L. Bonauto at the Encyclopedia Copyright © 2015, glbtq, Inc. 2010 Spirit of Justice dinner. Entry Copyright © 2012 glbtq, Inc. Reprinted from http://www.glbtq.com A leading American lawyer, Mary Bonauto has served as the civil rights project director at Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) for more than two decades. In that capacity, she has won major rulings that have brought the promise of equal rights nearer to reality in the lives of glbtq citizens. She is widely regarded as among the country's best litigators in the cause of marriage equality. Bonauto was born on June 8, 1961 into a Roman Catholic family of modest means in Newburgh, New York. The only daughter of a pharmacist and a teacher, she grew up with three brothers. When Bonauto was growing up and attending public schools, Newburgh was a depressed factory town riven by racial and class divisions. A good athlete who played tennis, basketball, softball, and volleyball, she had the opportunity to mingle with a wide variety of individuals. This interaction led her to distrust stereotypes of all kinds. Bonauto received her undergraduate education at Hamilton College, where she majored in history and comparative literature. There she also came to terms with her lesbianism, though she did not come out to her parents until she entered law school at Northeastern University in 1984. Bonauto's acceptance of her homosexuality caused her to abandon the Roman Catholic Church, though she says she is still guided by the Catholic values that helped form her commitment to social justice.
    [Show full text]
  • September 20, 2019 Program Design Branch, Program
    September 20, 2019 Program Design Branch, Program Development Division, Food and Nutrition Service United States Department of Agriculture 3101 Park Center Dr., Alexandria, VA 22302 Re: Notice of Proposed Rule Making -- Revision of Categorical Eligibility in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) RIN 0584-AE62 Dear Program Design Branch: The undersigned lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) and allied organizations urge the USDA to withdraw its proposed rule, Revision of Categorical Eligibility in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). If implemented, the proposed rule would harm millions of low-income Americans, with particularly negative implications for the LGBTQ community. Since 1996, over forty jurisdictions have implemented a process known as “broad-based categorical eligibility” (BBCE), for households receiving some in-kind services funded through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program. While federal requirements restrict SNAP assistance to households with net incomes under 100% of the federal poverty level (FPL), gross incomes under 130% of the FPL, and in many cases liquid assets below $2,250, the BBCE option gives states flexibility to adjust these thresholds.i Most states have opted to eliminate the asset test and increase the gross income limit (up to 200% of the FPL) for SNAP. In this manner, states can: 1) extend SNAP eligibility to families with gross incomes working their way up the economic ladder but still struggling with high costs for basics, and 2) incentivize families to save by loosening restrictions on assets. Congress has consistently upheld BBCE since its inception, most recently during the 2018 Farm Bill.ii The proposed rule would greatly undercut the scope of BBCE, effectively sidestepping Congress’ bipartisan efforts to maintain the option.
    [Show full text]
  • The Story of in Re Marriage Cases (2010), Available At
    Santa Clara Law Santa Clara Law Digital Commons Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 6-1-2010 Six Cases in Search of a Decision: The tS ory of In re Marriage Cases Jean C. Love Santa Clara University School of Law, [email protected] Patricia A. Cain Santa Clara University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/facpubs Part of the Law Commons Automated Citation Jean C. Love and Patricia A. Cain, Six Cases in Search of a Decision: The Story of In re Marriage Cases (2010), Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/facpubs/617 This Book Chapter is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Six Cases in Search of a Decision: The Story of In re Marriage Cases Patricia A. Cain and Jean C. Love ―Whatever is a reality today, whatever you touch and believe in and that seems real for you today, is going to be — like the reality of yesterday — an illusion tomorrow.‖1 On May 15, 2008, the Supreme Court of California handed down its decision in the much awaited litigation officially known as In re Marriage Cases.2 The case was actually a consolidation of six individual cases, all raising the same issue: Is denial of marriage to same-sex couples valid under the California Constitution? These six cases, as with Pirandello‘s six characters in search of an author, took center stage for a time, not in a real theater, but rather in the evolving drama over extending equal marriage rights to gay men and lesbians.
    [Show full text]
  • Organizations Endorsing the Equality Act
    647 ORGANIZATIONS ENDORSING THE EQUALITY ACT National Organizations 9to5, National Association of Working Women Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC A Better Balance Asian American Federation A. Philip Randolph Institute Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance (APALA) ACRIA Association of Flight Attendants – CWA ADAP Advocacy Association Association of Title IX Administrators - ATIXA Advocates for Youth Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists AFGE Athlete Ally AFL-CIO Auburn Seminary African American Ministers In Action Autistic Self Advocacy Network The AIDS Institute Avodah AIDS United BALM Ministries Alan and Leslie Chambers Foundation Bayard Rustin Liberation Initiative American Academy of HIV Medicine Bend the Arc Jewish Action American Academy of Pediatrics Black and Pink American Association for Access, EQuity and Diversity BPFNA ~ Bautistas por la PaZ American Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Brethren Mennonite Council for LGBTQ Interests American Association of University Women (AAUW) Caring Across Generations American Atheists Catholics for Choice American Bar Association Center for American Progress American Civil Liberties Union Center for Black Equity American Conference of Cantors Center for Disability Rights American Counseling Association Center for Inclusivity American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Center for Inquiry Employees (AFSCME) Center for LGBTQ and Gender Studies American Federation of Teachers CenterLink: The Community of LGBT Centers American Heart Association Central Conference
    [Show full text]
  • Allred, Gloria 3.4.19 Final Press Release
    ! For Immediate Release: March 8, 2019 Media Contacts: Sujatha Ramanujan, Induction Chair Sandy Sloane, Events Consultant [email protected] [email protected] 585-230-1812 954-707-2652 National Women’s Hall of Fame Induction Sept. 14, 2019 Gloria Allred, attorney and activist to be included Seneca Falls, NY: - In celebration of the 100th year anniversary of Women’s Right to Vote in NY, The National Women's Hall of Fame will host a weekend celebrating the achievements of American Women in the birthplace of the Women’s Rights movement in the U.S. The highlight of the weekend is the induction of ten women into the Hall of Fame for their historic achievements. "We are pleased to add these American women to the ranks of inductees whose leadership and achievements have changed the course of American history," said Betty Bayer, Ph. D., the Hall's President. The National Women's Hall of Fame will celebrate the inclusion of these extraordinary women into the ranks of the inductees at the biennial induction ceremony on September 14, 2019 at the magnificent del Lago Resort & Casino, located outside of Seneca Falls, NY. The 2019 class of inductees were nominated by the public, judged by an interdisciplinary team of experts across the nominees’ fields, and selected for their invaluable contributions to American Society in the areas of the arts, athletics, business, education, government, humanities, philanthropy, and science. Gloria Allred: (1941- ) Gloria Allred is a founding partner of the law firm of Allred, Maroko & Goldberg (AM&G). Across her 42-year legal career, her firm has handled more women’s rights cases than any other private law firm in the nation and has won hundreds of millions of dollars for victims.
    [Show full text]
  • Feminism & Philosophy Vol.5 No.1
    APA Newsletters Volume 05, Number 1 Fall 2005 NEWSLETTER ON FEMINISM AND PHILOSOPHY FROM THE EDITOR, SALLY J. SCHOLZ NEWS FROM THE COMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN, ROSEMARIE TONG ARTICLES MARILYN FISCHER “Feminism and the Art of Interpretation: Or, Reading the First Wave to Think about the Second and Third Waves” JENNIFER PURVIS “A ‘Time’ for Change: Negotiating the Space of a Third Wave Political Moment” LAURIE CALHOUN “Feminism is a Humanism” LOUISE ANTONY “When is Philosophy Feminist?” ANN FERGUSON “Is Feminist Philosophy Still Philosophy?” OFELIA SCHUTTE “Feminist Ethics and Transnational Injustice: Two Methodological Suggestions” JEFFREY A. GAUTHIER “Feminism and Philosophy: Getting It and Getting It Right” SARA BEARDSWORTH “A French Feminism” © 2005 by The American Philosophical Association ISSN: 1067-9464 BOOK REVIEWS Robin Fiore and Hilde Lindemann Nelson: Recognition, Responsibility, and Rights: Feminist Ethics and Social Theory REVIEWED BY CHRISTINE M. KOGGEL Diana Tietjens Meyers: Being Yourself: Essays on Identity, Action, and Social Life REVIEWED BY CHERYL L. HUGHES Beth Kiyoko Jamieson: Real Choices: Feminism, Freedom, and the Limits of the Law REVIEWED BY ZAHRA MEGHANI Alan Soble: The Philosophy of Sex: Contemporary Readings REVIEWED BY KATHRYN J. NORLOCK Penny Florence: Sexed Universals in Contemporary Art REVIEWED BY TANYA M. LOUGHEAD CONTRIBUTORS ANNOUNCEMENTS APA NEWSLETTER ON Feminism and Philosophy Sally J. Scholz, Editor Fall 2005 Volume 05, Number 1 objective claims, Beardsworth demonstrates Kristeva’s ROM THE DITOR “maternal feminine” as “an experience that binds experience F E to experience” and refuses to be “turned into an abstraction.” Both reconfigure the ground of moral theory by highlighting the cultural bias or particularity encompassed in claims of Feminism, like philosophy, can be done in a variety of different objectivity or universality.
    [Show full text]
  • GLAD and Equality Maine Testimony
    TESTIMONY OF MARY L. BONAUTO for GLBTQ LEGAL ADVOCATES & DEFENDERS & EQUALITY MAINE LD 1512 – OUGHT TO PASS COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS May 4, 2021 Senator Rafferty, Representative Brennan, and Honorable Members of the Committee on Education and Cultural Affairs: Good Morning. My name is Mary Bonauto, and I am an attorney at GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD). GLAD is a legal rights organization that works throughout New England and nationally to create a just society free of discrimination based on gender identity and expression, HIV status, and sexual orientation. Joining us in this testimony is EqualityMaine. GLAD and EqualityMaine are supportive of the overall concept and goals of LD 1512, An Act To Create the Office of the Education Ombudsman and To Establish a Commission To Study the Creation of a Reporting and Response System To Assist Public Schools in Addressing Incidents of Bias, Discrimination and Harassment. We are supportive of a study commission as set forth in section 2 of the bill, and are supportive of the concept of an ombudsperson in section 1 of the bill. As to section 1, we have a number of comments. • We agree with dedicated resources to address the duties identified in the proposed §973 and on a state-wide level, but are curious as to whether the Department of Education can or already does this role, and whether it can continue to do so across administrations. • To the extent this new Ombudsperson would help to harmonize differing local policies into statewide polices, we support that clarity and believe it would assist communities across the state in building positive, respectful, learning environments for students and teachers and staff.
    [Show full text]
  • The Honorable Gavin Newsom Governor, State of California State Capitol, First Floor Sacramento, CA 95814
    The Honorable Gavin Newsom Governor, State of California State Capitol, First Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Governor Newsom: Thank you for your incredible leadership and seeing our state through the COVID-19 crisis. The bold and decisive actions that you have taken have saved lives and established California as an example of how to meet this moment for the rest of the nation. We wish you, your family and your staff health and safety, especially during these trying times. We write to you as leaders of LGBTQ+ and allied nonprofit organizations in urgent need of financial support in order to survive this crisis. The economic fallout from COVID-19 has upended our budgets by forcing us to cancel fundraising events and preventing us from completing reimbursement-based grant deliverables that require face-to-face interaction and outreach. Meanwhile, many of our generous sponsors and donors have been impacted by the crisis themselves and are no longer in a position to support our work financially. Our work on behalf of the LGBTQ+ community — a community disproportionately at risk of the worst medical, financial, employment, and social impacts of COVID-19 — is imperiled by this crisis and the lack of a targeted comprehensive funding response. LGBTQ+ people already experience greater disparities in health and well-being compared to the general public. These disparities include higher rates of HIV and cancer that can lead to compromised immune systems, higher rates of tobacco use and smoking, barriers to healthcare access and — for the more than three million LGBTQ+ elders living in the United States — widespread social isolation and a hesitancy to reach out to health and other care providers.
    [Show full text]
  • OPINION and DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH; GAIL J
    FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KRISTIN M. PERRY; SANDRA B. STIER; PAUL T. KATAMI; JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO, Plaintiffs-Appellees, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., in his official capacity as Governor of California; KAMALA D. HARRIS, in her official capacity as Attorney General of California; MARK B. HORTON, in his official capacity as Director of the California Department of Public Health & State Registrar of Vital Statistics; LINETTE SCOTT, in her official capacity as Deputy Director of Health Information & Strategic Planning for the California Department of Public Health; PATRICK O’CONNELL, in his official capacity as Clerk-Recorder for the County of Alameda; DEAN C. LOGAN, in his official capacity as Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk for the County of Los Angeles, Defendants, 1569 1570 PERRY v. BROWN HAK-SHING WILLIAM TAM, Intervenor-Defendant, and DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH; GAIL J. No. 10-16696 KNIGHT; MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ; D.C. No. MARK A. JANSSON; 3:09-cv-02292- PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM-YES ON 8, VRW A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL, as official proponents of Proposition 8, Intervenor-Defendants-Appellants. KRISTIN M. PERRY; SANDRA B. STIER; PAUL T. KATAMI; JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO, Plaintiffs-Appellees, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., in his official capacity as Governor of California; KAMALA D. HARRIS, in her official capacity as Attorney General of California; MARK B. HORTON, in his official capacity as Director of the California Department of Public Health & State Registrar of Vital Statistics; PERRY v. BROWN 1571 LINETTE SCOTT, in her official capacity as Deputy Director of Health Information & Strategic Planning for the California Department of Public Health; PATRICK O’CONNELL, in his official capacity as Clerk-Recorder for the County of Alameda; DEAN C.
    [Show full text]
  • Exclusionary Equality and the Case for Same-Sex Families: a Reworking of Martha Fineman's Re-Visioned Family Law
    Seattle Journal for Social Justice Volume 2 Issue 2 Article 25 May 2004 Exclusionary Equality and the Case for Same-Sex Families: A Reworking of Martha Fineman's Re-visioned Family Law Zachary A. Kramer Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sjsj Recommended Citation Kramer, Zachary A. (2004) "Exclusionary Equality and the Case for Same-Sex Families: A Reworking of Martha Fineman's Re-visioned Family Law," Seattle Journal for Social Justice: Vol. 2 : Iss. 2 , Article 25. Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sjsj/vol2/iss2/25 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Publications and Programs at Seattle University School of Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Seattle Journal for Social Justice by an authorized editor of Seattle University School of Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 505 EXCLUSIONARY EQUALITY AND THE CASE FOR SAME-SEX FAMILIES: A Reworking of Martha Fineman’s Re-visioned Family Law Zachary A. Kramer1 I. INTRODUCTION For many years now, scholars, activists, and even the general public have debated the legal issues related to same-sex families.2 This debate, while ostensibly academic, has become far more acute in the wake of a handful of groundbreaking court decisions. The first of these cases is the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas.3 In Lawrence, the Court struck down Texas’s criminal sodomy law and overruled its decision in Bowers v. Hardwick,4
    [Show full text]
  • Preservationism, Or the Elephant in the Room: How Opponents of Same-Sex Marriage Deceive Us Into Establishing Religion
    19_WILSON.DOC 2/8/2007 2:11 PM PRESERVATIONISM, OR THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM: HOW OPPONENTS OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE DECEIVE US INTO ESTABLISHING RELIGION JUSTIN T. WILSON* “People place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution. They don’t put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible.” –Jamin Raskin, Professor of Law, American University, in testimony before the Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee1 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................562 I. DEFINING “MARRIAGE”........................................................................................567 A. A Brief History and Overview................................................................567 B. The Establishment Clause and Our Religious Heritage......................576 II. A PRIMER ON THE FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT AND ITS KIN..................586 A. What Are Same-Sex Marriage Bans and What Do They Do? .............586 B. Who Supports the FMA? .........................................................................592 III. WHERE ARE WE GOING, AND WHY ARE WE IN THIS HANDBASKET?: A SHIFT IN FUNDAMENTAL(IST) RHETORIC .............................................................597 A. The Theoretical Underpinnings of Preservationism............................599 B. Preservationism: An Application ...........................................................602 IV. MODERN ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE JURISPRUDENCE: “HOPELESS DISARRAY” ............................................................................................................604
    [Show full text]
  • Scwla Reg Broch 2018 V2.Indd
    Greetings, It is with great pleasure that I cordially invite you (and your family!) to join the South Carolina Women Lawyers’ Association (“SCWLA”) in Hilton Head, South Carolina on October 19 – 21, 2018 for our Annual Conference to celebrate SCWLA’s 25th Anniversary! We are thrilled to celebrate our organization’s 25th year and are pleased to offer dynamic pro- graming under our theme, “Engagement and Empowerment.” Our keynote speaker is Gloria Allred, an attorney known for fighting on the front lines of women’s rights and victims’ rights for over four decades (see the trailer for her documentary on Netflix here: https://www.youtube.com/embed/SC8Eg0odTfY). Other featured speakers include Deb Sofield, acclaimed speaker, author and coach; and Toni Messina, a renowned criminal defense attorney. We are also excited about a presentation on the ABA’s Commission on Women in the Profession’s “Grit” Project, which educates women lawyers about the science behind grit and growth mindset - two important traits that many successful women lawyers have in common. Other programing will include presentations on legal marketing, the federal rules and red wine (yes, you read that right!), and how #metoo is impacting the profession. I’m also excited to share that this year, we have structured the scheduling of the CLEs a bit differently than in the past. We are cognizant of the great time (and expense) that attending the conference entails, so we have designed the pro- gram to both maximize your CLE offerings and allow you time to enjoy what Hilton Head has to offer with your signifi- cant other or your family at a reasonable price.
    [Show full text]