DOCSLIB.ORG

An Other Christian Perspective on Lawrence V. Texas Victor C

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Other Christian Perspective on Lawrence V. Texas Victor C Penn State Law eLibrary Journal Articles Faculty Works 2006 An Other Christian Perspective on Lawrence v. Texas Victor C. Romero Penn State Law Follow this and additional works at: http://elibrary.law.psu.edu/fac_works Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, and the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Victor C. Romero, An Other Christian Perspective on Lawrence v. Texas, 45 J. Cath. Leg. Stud. 115 (2006). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Works at Penn State Law eLibrary. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Penn State Law eLibrary. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES AN "OTHER" CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE ON LAWRENCE V. TEXAS VICTOR C. ROMEROt I. GAYS, GOD, AND CAESAR The introduction to the seminal compendium, Christian Perspectives on Legal Thought,1 asks the following question: "What does it mean in America today to say that Jesus, rather than Caesar, is Lord?'' 2 Put slightly differently, if Caesar represents the power, glory, and influence of man and the secular world, how should people who claim to follow Jesus rather than Caesar conduct themselves in the public sphere? As a Christian and a teacher of constitutional law, I would like to apply that question to an analysis of the American public's reaction to recent events, beginning with the Supreme Court's 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas,3 the case outlawing prohibitions against same-sex activity, and ending with the 2005 referenda that resulted in limiting the definition of marriage to a union between a man and woman in eighteen states. This essay will explore whether this public reaction, fueled in large part by Christians, reflects placing Jesus rather than the world at the center of worship and concern. Although I can claim no expertise in Christian theology, I wonder whether a more faithful application of Jesus's teachings on social justice would have led to a different interpretation, one that embraces t Associate Dean for Academic Affairs & Maureen B. Cavanaugh Research Professor, Penn State University. I thank Phil McConnaughay for his support of this and many other projects; my many colleagues for their input and conversations regarding this subject, especially Carlos Ball and Rob Vischer, for insightful comments on an earlier draft; and, most importantly, I thank my wife, Corie, my children, Ryan and Julia, and my family in the Philippines for their constant love and care. ' CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVES ON LEGAL THOUGHT xvii-xxii (Michael W. McConnell, Robert F. Cochran, Jr. & Angela C. Carmella eds., 2001). 2 Id. at xx. 3 539 U.S. 558 (2003). 116 JOURNAL OF CATHOLIC LEGAL STUDIES [Vol. 45:115 Lawrence and rejects States' attempts to narrowly define families in ways that mirror Levitical teaching.4 In the spirit of inquiry, reconciliation, and friendly debate, I humbly offer these thoughts to fellow Christians who may disagree, concerned that the prevailing narrative on these events reflects but one view of Christianity.5 II. IN THE BEGINNING WERE HARDWICK AND EVANS 6 Before the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Lawrence, American constitutional law on the rights of gays and lesbians was unsettled. On the one hand, Bowers v. Hardwick7 stood for the proposition that there was no substantive due process right to engage in same-sex sodomy and that therefore, the state of Georgia was allowed to criminalize it.8 On the other, Romer v. Evans9 held that the state of Colorado could not amend its constitution to disallow gays and lesbians from petitioning authorities to enact antidiscrimination laws. 10 Because Hardwick was adjudicated on due process grounds while Evans was an equal protection case, the Court's view on future gay rights cases was decidedly murky, but perhaps what the justices anticipated.1" As William Eskridge explains, "[t]his lack of 4 See, e.g., Leviticus 18:22, 20:13 (New American) (discussing the sinfulness of same-sex activity under Old Testament law). 5 I am reminded of the example of civil rights activist Bob Moses who, knowing he could not change hearts himself, understood nonetheless that he could be a catalyst for change: 'Moses tried to be a catalyst-without being the determining force-of the other person's decision to act. He understood that as an outsider he could never badger the reluctant participant." CHARLES MARSH, THE BELOVED COMMUNITY: How FAITH SHAPES SOCIAL JUSTICE, FROM THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT TO TODAY 104 (2005). It is in this spirit that I offer these thoughts, ever mindful that I may be wrong. 6 Although these cases are more popularly called Bowers and Romer, respectively, I think it more appropriate to highlight the names of the gay petitioners whose rights were at issue. 7 478 U.S. 186 (1986). 8 Id. at 189-91. 9 517 U.S. 620 (1996). 10 Id. at 626-27. 11 It is also worth noting that the reach of the proposed Amendment 2 in Evans extended beyond the sexual conduct discussed in Hardwick to encompass same-sex orientation. The amendment read: No Protected Status Based on Homosexual, Lesbian or Bisexual Orientation. Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, 20061 LAWRENCE V. TEXAS authoritative guidance is probably what the Supreme Court expected after Evans: ...courts would struggle with issues of sexual orientation discrimination on a case-by-case basis, less constrained by Supreme Court precedent because of the Hardwick versus Evans choice now available." 12 Thus, in the interim between 1996, when Evans was decided, and 2003, when Lawrence was handed down, there was no clear answer to the issue of when government discrimination based on sexual orientation was constitutionally permissible. Although raising other thorny issues, the Court reconciled the apparent Hardwick- Evans conflict by overruling Hardwick in Lawrence, discussed more fully below. III. THE FLOOD: LAWRENCE AND THE BACKLASH The facts of Lawrence are worth a brief mention here, if only because of the bizarre way in which the case came into being.13 On one fall evening in 1998, John Lawrence and Tyron Garner were doing what millions of other couples do every day in America-they were having sex in their home. What happened next was less commonplace. Police broke into their apartment, interrupting their intimate activity. Unbeknownst to them, a neighbor had called the police to the Lawrence-Garner household, reporting a weapons violation. While the neighbor was later charged with filing a false report, Lawrence and Garner were arrested pursuant to a Texas statute that criminalized sex between members of the same gender as "deviate sexual intercourse." 14 At the time of the arrest, Texas ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination. Id. at 624 (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added). 12 WILLIAM N. ESKRIDGE, JR., GAYLAW: CHALLENGING THE APARTHEID OF THE CLOSET 172 (1999). 13 For more on the murky facts of Lawrence, see generally Dale Carpenter, The Unknown Past of Lawrence v. Texas, 102 MICH. L. REV. 1464 (2004). The facts of Hardwick are similarly curious: Unbeknownst to Hardwick, a police officer was given permission to enter his home pursuant to what turned out to be a faulty arrest warrant. See JOYCE MURDOCH & DEB PRICE, COURTING JUSTICE: GAY MEN AND LESBIANS V. THE SUPREME COURT 278-79 (2001). 14 TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.06(a) (Vernon 2003), invalidated by Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). 118 JOURNAL OF CATHOLIC LEGAL STUDIES [Vol. 45:115 was but one of a handful of states15 that criminalized same-sex activity. After pleading guilty to the act, the couple challenged their convictions in the Texas state courts, claiming that the law violated their federal constitutional rights. 16 Perhaps not surprisingly, given the Hardwick precedent, the Texas courts 17 upheld their convictions. In a 6-to-3 decision, the Supreme Court reversed. While Justice Kennedy penned the majority opinion and Justice O'Connor concurred in the judgment, the same six justices who struck down Colorado Amendment 2 in Evans voted in the plaintiffs' favor. The Kennedy majority explicitly chose to overrule Hardwick, noting that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was broad enough to protect the consensual, private sexual activity of adults, whether the partners are of the same or opposite sex.'8 After painstakingly reviewing the history of anti-sodomy statutes generally (they did not discriminate against same-gender couples) and the Texas criminal law in particular (it was only recently enacted, apparently to target same-gender couples), Kennedy invoked the Court's decisions in Planned Parenthood v. Casey19 and Evans as controlling precedents-Planned Parenthood, to emphasize the Due Process Clause's substantive protection of intimate, personal decisions, and Evans to highlight the Court's rejection of animus- based discrimination based on sexual orientation. 20 Notwith- standing Justice Scalia's invocation of stare decisis, 21 the Kennedy majority saw fit to overturn Hardwick.22 From a purely constitutional law perspective, Lawrence was a long time coming, and indeed, Hardwick was arguably 15 The other states which had similar laws at the time included Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina. Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 581 (O'Connor, J., concurring). 16 Id. at 563 (majority opinion). 17 Id. 18 Id. at 573-75. 19 505 U.S. 833 (1992). 20 Lawrence, 539 U.S.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Transgender Equality
    THE REPORT OF THE About the National Center for Transgender Equality The National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE) is the nation’s leading social justice policy advocacy organization devoted to ending discrimination and violence against transgender people. NCTE was founded in 2003 by transgender activists who recognized the urgent need for policy change to advance transgender equality. NCTE now has an extensive record winning life-saving changes for transgender people. NCTE works by educating the public and by influencing local, state, and federal policymakers to change policies and laws to improve the lives of transgender people. By empowering transgender people and our allies, NCTE creates a strong and clear voice for transgender equality in our nation’s capital and around the country. © 2016 The National Center for Transgender Equality. We encourage and grant permission for the reproduction and distribution of this publication in whole or in part, provided that it is done with attribution to the National Center for Transgender Equality. Further written permission is not required. RECOMMENDED CITATION James, S. E., Herman, J. L., Rankin, S., Keisling, M., Mottet, L., & Anafi, M. (2016).The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality. The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey by: Sandy E. James Jody L. Herman Susan Rankin Mara Keisling Lisa Mottet Ma’ayan Anafi December 2016 Table of Contents Acknowledgements ...............................................................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court Southern District of Ohio Western Division
    Case: 1:13-cv-00501-TSB Doc #: 65 Filed: 12/23/13 Page: 1 of 50 PAGEID #: <pageID> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION JAMES OBERGEFELL, et al., : Case No. 1:13-cv-501 Plaintiffs, : Judge Timothy S. Black : vs. : : THEODORE E. WYMYSLO, M.D., et al., : Defendants. : FINAL ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION This civil case is before the Court for final decision on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Declaratory Judgment and Permanent Injunction (Doc. 53), the record evidence (Docs. 34, 42-47, 61; see Appendix at pp. 49-50i), Defendants’ memorandum in opposition (Doc. 56), Plaintiffs’ reply (Doc. 62), and oral argument held on December 18, 2013. Plaintiffs include two individuals who entered into legal same-sex marriages in states that provide for such marriages and have been denied recognition of those legal marriages on their spouses’ death certificates by the State of Ohio. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that, as applied to them, Ohio’s ban on the recognition of legal same-sex marriages granted in other states is unconstitutional; and, therefore, that a permanent injunction compelling Defendants and their officers to recognize Plaintiffs’ marriages on Ohio death certificates is required under the law and the evidence. Also present as a Plaintiff is Robert Grunn, an Ohio funeral director, who seeks a declaration of his rights and duties when preparing death certificates for individuals in same-sex marriages. Defendants are the local and state officers responsible
    [Show full text]
  • A Conservative Defense of Romer V. Evans Dale Carpenter University of Minnesota Law School
    Indiana Law Journal Volume 76 | Issue 2 Article 4 Spring 2001 A Conservative Defense of Romer v. Evans Dale Carpenter University of Minnesota Law School Follow this and additional works at: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Sexuality and the Law Commons, and the State and Local Government Law Commons Recommended Citation Carpenter, Dale (2001) "A Conservative Defense of Romer v. Evans," Indiana Law Journal: Vol. 76: Iss. 2, Article 4. Available at: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol76/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Indiana Law Journal by an authorized administrator of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A Conservative Defense of Romer v. Evanst DALE CARPENTER" INTRODUCTION A conservative defense ofRomer v. Evans?' How could a conservative defend the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to strike down a Colorado state constitutional amendment repealing and prohibiting local gay civil rights laws? Wasn't the decision an unprincipled departure from the intentions of the Framers, the language of the Constitution, and the traditions of the nation? Wasn't it, in short, the very archetype of liberal judicial activism abhorred by conservatives? Many conservatives, including conservative legal scholars, have apparently thought so. Evans has been blasted in the conservative opinion pages of the NationalReview2 and the Weekly Standard,3 among many other popular-press outlets.4 Conservative legal scholars have launched a frontal assault on Evans, starting with an attack in the HarvardJournal ofLaw & PublicPolicy.
    [Show full text]
  • Same-Sex Marriage: When Will It Reach Utah? Robert Wintemute
    Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law Volume 20 | Issue 2 Article 12 3-1-2006 Same-Sex Marriage: When Will It Reach Utah? Robert Wintemute Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/jpl Part of the Family Law Commons, and the Sexuality and the Law Commons Recommended Citation Robert Wintemute, Same-Sex Marriage: When Will It Reach Utah?, 20 BYU J. Pub. L. 527 (2006). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/jpl/vol20/iss2/12 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by BYU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law by an authorized editor of BYU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Same-Sex Marriage: When Will It Reach Utah? Robert Wintemute∗ Attempts to amend constitutions so as to make legal1 marriage impossible for same-sex couples are futile. Amendments of this kind are nothing more than temporary “legal dikes” designed to create “legal islands” in which a heterosexual majority can continue to discriminate against a lesbian and gay minority in relation to access to legal marriage. These amendments seek to strip the gay and lesbian minority of any possibility of seeking protection against such discrimination from either the legislature or the courts. Where such amendments have been adopted, they will eventually be repealed or invalidated, because the “incoming tide,” i.e., the long-term international trend, will eventually bring full legal equality to our fellow human beings who happen to be lesbian and gay individuals, or members of same-sex couples, with or without children.
    [Show full text]
  • Toward Equal Rights for Lgbt Employees: Legal and Managerial Implications for Employers
    Ohio Northern University Law Review Volume 43 Issue 1 Article 5 2019 TOWARD EQUAL RIGHTS FOR LGBT EMPLOYEES: LEGAL AND MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR EMPLOYERS Michael T. Zugelder Old Dominion University Strome College of Business Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.onu.edu/onu_law_review Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, and the Labor and Employment Law Commons Recommended Citation Zugelder, Michael T. (2019) "TOWARD EQUAL RIGHTS FOR LGBT EMPLOYEES: LEGAL AND MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR EMPLOYERS," Ohio Northern University Law Review: Vol. 43 : Iss. 1 , Article 5. Available at: https://digitalcommons.onu.edu/onu_law_review/vol43/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the ONU Journals and Publications at DigitalCommons@ONU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Ohio Northern University Law Review by an authorized editor of DigitalCommons@ONU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Zugelder: TOWARD EQUAL RIGHTS FOR LGBT EMPLOYEES: LEGAL AND MANAGERIAL IMPL Toward Equal Rights for LGBT Employees: Legal and Managerial Implications for Employers MICHAEL T. ZUGELDER* American lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) workers have made great strides toward equal employment rights, and the trend toward equal rights is clear. Still, 52% of LGBT workers can be denied employment or fired simply for being LGBT. This state of the law makes the U.S. lag behind many of its major trading partners, who have already established equal employment in their national laws. While there are a number of routes U.S. law may soon take to end LGBT employment discrimination, private firms, especially those with international operations, will need to determine the best course to take.
    [Show full text]
  • Lawrence V. Texas
    No. INTHE SUPREME COURT OF TIlE UNITED STATES JOHN GEDDES LAWRENCE AND TYRON GARNER, Petitioners, V. STATE OF TEXAS Respondent. On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The Court Of Appeals Of Texas Fourteenth District PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI Paul M. Smith Ruth E. Harlow William M. Hohengarten Counsel of Record Daniel Mach Patricia M. Logue JENNER& BLOCK, LLC Susan L. Sommer 601 13th Street, N.W. LAMBDALEGALDEFENSE Washington, DC 20005 AND EDUCATION FUND, INC. (202) 639-6000 120 Wall Street, Suite 1500 New York, NY 10005 Mitchell Katine (212) 809-8585 WILLIAMS, BIRNBERG & ANDERSEN,L.L.P. 6671 Southwest Freeway, Suite 303 Houston, Texas 77074 (713) 981-9595 Counsel for Petitioners i QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether Petitioners' criminal convictions under the Texas "Homosexual Conduct" law - which criminalizes sexual intimacy by same-sex couples, but not identical behavior by different-sex couples - violate the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection of the laws? 2. Whether Petitioners' criminal convictions for adult consensual sexual intimacy in the home violate their vital interests in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? 3. Whether Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), should be overruled? ii PARTIES Petitioners are John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner. Respondent is the State of Texas. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE QUESTIONS PRESENTED ........................... i PARTIES ........................................... ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................... vi OPINIONS AND ORDERS BELOW ................... 1 JURISDICTION ..................................... 1 STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS .. 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ......................... 2 A. The Homosexual Conduct Law ............ 2 B. Petitioners' Arrests, Convictions, and Appeals ................................ 5 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ..............
    [Show full text]
  • Romer V. Evans: a Legal and Political Analysis
    Minnesota Journal of Law & Inequality Volume 15 Issue 2 Article 1 December 1997 Romer v. Evans: A Legal and Political Analysis Caren G. Dubnoff Follow this and additional works at: https://lawandinequality.org/ Recommended Citation Caren G. Dubnoff, Romer v. Evans: A Legal and Political Analysis, 15(2) LAW & INEQ. 275 (1997). Available at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/lawineq/vol15/iss2/1 Minnesota Journal of Law & Inequality is published by the University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing. Romer v. Evans: A Legal and Political Analysis Caren G. Dubnoff* Introduction Despite the Supreme Court's role as final arbiter of the "law of the land," its power to effect social change is limited. For exam- ple, school desegregation, mandated by the Court in 1954, was not actually implemented until years later when Congress and the President finally took action.1 As a result, prayer in public schools, repeatedly deemed illegal by the Court, continues in many parts of the country even today. 2 To some degree, whether the Court's po- * Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, College of the Holy Cross. Ph.D. 1974, Columbia University; A.B. 1964, Bryn Mawr. The author wishes to thank Jill Moeller for her most helpful editorial assistance. 1. Several studies have demonstrated that Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), produced little school desegregation by itself. One of the earliest of these was J.W. PELTASON, FIFTY-EIGHT LONELY MEN: SOUTHERN FEDERAL JUDGES AND SCHOOL DESEGREGATION (1961) (demonstrating how district court judges evaded the decision, leaving school segregation largely in place).
    [Show full text]
  • Report Evidence of Persistent and Pervasive Workplace
    Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review Law Reviews 3-1-2012 Evidence of Persistent and Pervasive Workplace Discrimination Against LGBT People: The eedN for Federal Legislation Prohibiting Discrimination and Providing for Equal Employment Benefits Jennifer C. Pizer Brad Sears Christy Mallory Nan D. Hunter Recommended Citation Jennifer C. Pizer, Brad Sears, Christy Mallory, and Nan D. Hunter, Evidence of Persistent and Pervasive Workplace Discrimination Against LGBT People: The Need for Federal Legislation Prohibiting Discrimination and Providing for Equal Employment Benefits, 45 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 715 (2012). Available at: http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol45/iss3/3 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews at Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EVIDENCE OF PERSISTENT AND PERVASIVE WORKPLACE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST LGBT PEOPLE: THE NEED FOR FEDERAL LEGISLATION PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION AND PROVIDING FOR EQUAL EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS Jennifer C. Pizer, Brad Sears, Christy Mallory & Nan D. Hunter* Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people have experienced a long and pervasive history of employment discrimination. Today, more than eight million people in the American workforce identify as LGBT, but there still is no federal law that explicitly prohibits sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination against them. This Article begins by surveying the social science research and other evidence illustrating the nature and scope of the discrimination against LGBT workers and the harmful effects of this discrimination on both employees and employers.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case That Changed History by 1998, Multiple Efforts to End Sodomy Laws Had Hit a Wall
    EXCERPT The Case That Changed History By 1998, multiple efforts to end sodomy laws had hit a wall. As this excerpt from Flagrant Conduct: The Story of Lawrence v. Texas by Dale Carpenter, makes clear, attorneys at Lambda Legal saw an unprecedented opportunity in the case. But little was certain, and for a vast community victimized by the laws, a great deal was at stake. At the Wallisville substation two miles from John Lawrence’s apartment, Lawrence and Tyron Garner were shackled to a bench along with the evening’s other alleged criminals. After being processed at the substation, they were taken to the Harris County jail in downtown Houston and given standard orange jail jumpsuits to wear. Lawrence was so bruised and sore from his encounter with the police that he could not carry his mattress. The next day, September 18, 1998, Lawrence and Garner were taken to an initial arraignment. The hearing officer called Lawrence to the bench and the D.A. announced the charge of “homosexual conduct” against him. The D.A. then read the short affidavit from Deputy Joseph R. Quinn of the Harris County Sherriff’s Office stating that officers had observed Lawrence and Garner having anal sex. ) E The hearing officer, Carol Carrier, acting as a judge, NC E asked Lawrence how he would plead. “Not guilty,” R Lawrence responded. Garner also pleaded not guilty. Law ND Carrier scheduled another arraignment in the court A R of Justice of the Peace Mike Parrot for October 5, E RN just over two weeks away. The men were taken back GA to their cells to stay until their release date that night, TO ( A V after midnight.
    [Show full text]
  • Child Welfare
    State Policies Concerning LGBTQ Youth (research current as of September 2014*) Areas Covered: Public accommodations, social services (general), child welfare (specific services and programs), foster care (including child care centers, housing and training), juvenile detention/services, school and educational facilities and social worker guidelines Alabama Area of Law Law Title Policies Pertaining to LGBTQ Youth General Non Discrimination Ex Parte H.H., 830 So.2d 21 Case on child custody and LGBTQ caregivers: “The common law adopted in this State and upon which our laws are premised (Alabama 2002) likewise declares homosexuality to be detestable and an abominable sin. Homosexual conduct by its very nature is immoral, and its consequences are inherently destructive to the natural order of society. Any person who engages in such conduct is presumptively unfit to have custody of minor children under the laws of this state.” Ala. Code 1975 § 24-8-4, The Alabama Fair Housing Laws do not protect against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. “Unlawful discriminatory housing practices” Social Services (general) AL ADC 660-1-1-.05 The Department of Human Resources does not include sexual orientation or gender identity in its nondiscrimination policy for “Nondiscrimination in the provision of services. Programs” *Please contact Bill Bettencourt if you have knowledge or information on any corrections, changes or additions to state policies reflected in this document. Child Welfare (specific AL ADC 660-5-34.02, Included
    [Show full text]
  • Why the Religious Right Can't Have Its (Straight Wedding) Cake and Eat It Too: Breaking the Preservation-Through-Transformation Dynamic in Masterpiece Cakeshop V
    Minnesota Journal of Law & Inequality Volume 36 Issue 1 Article 3 January 2018 Why the Religious Right Can't Have Its (Straight Wedding) Cake and Eat It Too: Breaking the Preservation-Through-Transformation Dynamic in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission Kyle C. Velte Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Law and Gender Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Follow this and additional works at: https://lawandinequality.org/ Recommended Citation Kyle C. Velte, Why the Religious Right Can't Have Its (Straight Wedding) Cake and Eat It Too: Breaking the Preservation-Through-Transformation Dynamic in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 36(1) LAW & INEQ. (2018). Available at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/lawineq/vol36/iss1/3 Minnesota Journal of Law & Inequality is published by the University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing. 67 Why the Religious Right Can’t Have Its (Straight Wedding) Cake and Eat It Too: Breaking the Preservation-Through- Transformation Dynamic in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission Kyle C. Velte† Introduction In the 2017 term, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider the most significant LGBT-rights case since its 2015 marriage equality decision:1 Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.2 The case presents A question—what I call the Antidiscrimination Question3—that has been percolating through lower courts for nearly a decade: may small business owners, such as photographers, bakers, and florists, be exempt from state antidiscrimination laws based on their religious beliefs about same- sex marriage?4 The Religious Right5 has been squarely behind this † Visiting Assistant Professor, Texas Tech University School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Transformative Events in the LGBTQ Rights Movement
    Indiana Journal of Law and Social Equality Volume 5 Issue 2 Article 10 Spring 7-7-2017 Transformative Events in the LGBTQ Rights Movement Ellen A. Andersen University of Vermont, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ijlse Part of the Law Commons Publication Citation Ellen Ann Andersen, Transformative Events in the LGBTQ Rights Movement, 5 Ind. J.L. & Soc. Equality 441 (2017). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Indiana Journal of Law and Social Equality by an authorized editor of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Transformative Events in the LGBTQ Rights Movement Ellen Ann Andersen* ABSTRACT Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 Supreme Court case holding that same-sex couples had a constitutional right to marry under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, was widely hailed in the media as a turning point for the LGBTQ rights movement. In this article, I contemplate the meaning of turning points. Social movement scholars have shown that specific events can, on rare occasion, alter the subsequent trajectory of a social movement. Such events have been termed ‘transformative events.’ I ask whether judicial decisions have the capacity to be transformative events and, if so, under what circumstances. I begin by developing a set of criteria for identifying a transformative event which I then apply to a handful of judicial decisions that, like Obergefell, have been described widely as turning points and/or watersheds in the struggle for LGBTQ rights.
    [Show full text]