The Gay Rights Question in Contemporary American Law
The gay rights question is whether the second-class legal status of gay people should be changed. In this book Andrew Koppelman shows the powerful legal and moral case for gay equality, but argues that courts cannot and should not impose it.
The Gay Rights Question in Contemporary American Law offers an unusually nuanced analysis of the most pressing gay rights issues. Does antigay discrimination violate the Constitution? Is there any sound moral objection to homosexual conduct? Are such objections the moral and constitutional equivalent of racism? Must state laws recognizing same-sex unions be given effect in other states? Should courts take account of popular resistance to gay equality? Koppelman sheds new light on all these questions. Sure to upset purists on either side of the debate, Koppelman's book criticizes the legal arguments advanced both for and against gay rights. Just as important, it places these arguments in broader moral and social contexts, offering original, pragmatic, and workable legal solutions.
1 EQUAL PROTECTION AND INVIDIOUS INTENT
2 THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY?
3 THE SEX DISCRIMINATION ARGUMENT AND OBJECTIONS
4 WHY DISCRIMINATE?
5 CHOICE OF LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY
Other editions - View all
accepted Amendment American appears apply approach argued argument authority basis challenge chapter choice-of-law cited citizens civil claim classiﬁcation clear concern conclusion conduct Conﬂict considered constitutional couples decided decision Defense deny dissenting doctrine DOMA effect equal protection evidence exist explanation fact federal Finnis ﬁrst gay rights gays Hardwick held heterosexual homosexual human important intent interests interracial invalidated involving issue judges judgment judicial Justice kind least legislative legitimate lesbians married matter means miscegenation moral motives natural never noted objection observes opinion parties percent persons political possible practice present principle problem prohibition provision public policy question reason recognition recognized rejected relationships rely require respect result Romer rule same-sex marriage seems sex discrimination sexual social spouse state’s statute Supreme Court theory thought tion traditional United valid Vermont violated women wrong