Analyizes which rational basis review the court will choose to apply in Perry-- "ordinary" rational basis or rational basis "with bite".
Discusses strategic choices of movement for marriage equality, including impact litigation over legislation.
Highlights effect of Asian American grassroots organizing for marriage equality and tension with centering of impact litigation lawyers and plaintiffs of Perry.
Explains origins of domestic partner benefits, change in justifications as marriage equality laws passed, argues for renewed support for unmarried families.
Examines the importance of human dignity in South Africa's equality jurisprudence.
Discusses criticisms of LBGT movement focus on marriage equality and institutional inclusion that are detrimental to trans and queer politics.
Creative intervention that offers thirteen "false blackbirds" that the majority opinion in Hollingsworth v. Perry should avoid.
Critiques the District Court's use of the sex discrimination theory of marriage equality as too fragmented to provide an adequate model for advocates.
Calls for a minimilist decision in Perry that leaves unchallenged some of the more contentious legal questions.
Using San Fransisco's joining as a plaintiff in Perry for marriage equality as a case study, the author urges other public law offices to challenge laws that discriminate based on sexual orientation.
Argues the court should hold in Perry that taking away the right to marriage for certain groups of people violates the Equal Protection Clause.
Argues that Perry's legal reasoning as to Prop 8's constitutionality is uniquely/only applicable to California.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of contents of comments to the question posed.
Table of Contents
Discussion of the cultural and doctrinal legacy Perry has created for LGBTQ advocates.
Discussion of the strategic choices in building an evidentiary record of expert testimony in Windsor's challenged to DOMA.
Juxtaposition of marriage equality and anti-discrimination legislation and litigation with the Criminal Justice system's continued discrimination of LGBTQ folks
Perry is an opportunity for the court to correct constitutional doctrine by focusing on substantive due process and clarify its marriage jurisprudence.
Argues that Perry has pushed marriage equality to be more mainstream, thereby affecting other cases through judicial notice of shifting public opinion.
Examination of how the LGBTQ movement has worked through multiple legal and non-legal institutions simultaneously, and the effects each has had on the others.
Discussion of how Hollingsworth v. Perry fits within the larger LGBTQ rights movement, and suggestions for how the case should be decided.
Reflects on the paradigm relationship that Perry endorses, and provides a historical context in which to locate domestic partnerships in California.
Explanation of how narrow rulings such as Perry v. Brown allow legislatures to craft state-specific solutions and behave as laboratories of democracy.
Argues the drive for marriage equality is distracting and detrimental for LGBT communities in real impacts.
Argues the court should deny certiori altogether and avoid any question on any broad prouncements on the merits of the plaintiffs claim.
Critiquing the marginalizing effect institution of marriage has on those outside of non-state-sanctioned relationships, such as trans and incarcerated persons.
Argues that laws that infringe upon human dignity should be subject to strict scrutiny; imagines a decision in Perry in that vein.
Reflections on the LGBT movement since the author was at NYU in RLSC and impact of Perry moving forward.
Evaluates the two approaches that Justice Kennedy could take when deciding Hollingsworth v. Perry.
Reflection on the current "ephemeral moment" in marriage equality movement and analysis of the minimalist and federalism based litigation strategies.
The reasoning in an opinion in favor of gay marriage could frustrate efforts to achieve the goals of economic justice and dignity for non-marital families.
Highlights synergies of "coming out" framework of LGBT and immigration movements.
Other Issues in this Volume
- Playing Devil's Advocate: The Constitutional Implications of Requiring Advocacy Organizations to Present Opposing Viewpoints
- Shifting Foundation: The Problem with Inconsistent Implementation of Federal Recognition Regulations
- By the Courts, for the Bar: Judicial Exemption of Lawyers from the Scope of Consumer Protection Laws
- Using Storytelling to Achieve a Better Sequel to Foster Care Than Delinquency