Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:09:41.197Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Litigating Same-Sex Marriage: Might the Courts Actually Be Bastions of Rationality?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2005

Evan Gerstmann
Evan Gerstmann
Affiliation:
Loyola Marymount University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The great political philosopher John Stuart Mill once asked, “Was there any domination which did not appear natural to those that possessed it?” (Mill 1984, 269–270). For same-sex couples seeking access to the institution of marriage, the public sense that marriage is naturally and obviously meant only for opposite-sex couples has been a formidable barrier. The first state supreme courts to rule on same-sex marriage, in the early 1970s, simply relied upon dictionary definitions to hold that marriage was obviously a heterosexual institution. Politicians mostly ignored the issue altogether until the courts of Hawaii, Vermont, and Massachusetts forced public debate of the issue.

Type
Symposium
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 38 , Issue 2 , April 2005 , pp. 217 - 220
Copyright
© 2005 by the American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Epstein Lee, and Joseph E. Kobylka. 1992. The Supreme Court and Legal Change: Abortion and the Death Penalty. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Gerstmann Evan. 1999. The Constitutional Underclass: Gays, Lesbians, and the Failure of Class-Based Equal Protection. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gerstmann Evan. 2003. Same-Sex Marriage and the Constitution. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gillman Howard. 2001. “What's Law Got to Do With It? Judicial Behaviorists Test the ‘Legal Model’ of Judicial Decision Making.” Law and Social Inquiry 26 (spring): 465–498.Google Scholar
Mill John Stuart. 1984. “The Subjection of Women.” Reprinted in Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, ed. John M. Robinson. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Patterson Charlotte, J. 1995. “Lesbian Mothers, Gay Fathers and their Children.” In Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Identities over the Life Span, eds. Anthony R. D'Augelli and Charlotte J. Patterson. New York: Oxford University Press, 262–290.Google Scholar
Segal Jeffery A., and Harold J. Spaeth. 1999. Majority Rule or Minority Will: Adherence to Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Simmons T., and M. O'Connell. 2003. “Married-Couple and Unmarried-Partner Households: 2000.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau.Google Scholar
Sunstein Cass. 1994. “Homosexuality and the Constitution.” Indiana Law Journal 70: 1–28.Google Scholar
Volokh Eugene. 2001. “How the Justices Voted in Free Speech Cases, 1994–2000.” UCLA Law Review 48: 1191–1202.Google Scholar