FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3123099977> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3123099977 endingPage "1650" @default.
• W3123099977 startingPage "1635" @default.
• W3123099977 abstract "I. INTRODUCTION Andrew Koppelman's book, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines? drove me to the realization that interstate of questions involving same-sex marriage are entering a new and more subde stage of debate.2 The easier questions, such as whether one state can effectively dictate marriage policy to the rest of the United States, are gradually sorting themselves out. But as same-sex marriages-or their conceptual twin, same-sex civil unions-become a reality in a handful of states, the harder and more subde questions of extending some incidents of marriage are increasingly likely to appear. This Article addresses some of these questions and demonstrates that the debate regarding same-sex marriage may turn on whether the government will be compelled to extend equal protection rights to homosexuals on the basis that state defense of marriage acts potentially impos[e] a broad and undifferentiated disability on a single named group.3 While Part II of this Article provides necessary background regarding the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution, Part III demonstrates the effects of federal and state defense of marriage acts. Part III also sets forth a guiding hypothetical relevant to the constitutionality of state defense of marriage acts. Part TV discusses the significant impact of recent Supreme Court precedent on defense of marriage laws. Finally, Part V posits that Supreme Court jurisprudence makes a conflict with state defense of marriage acts inevitable. Part V also demonstrates that the Supreme Court's gradual expansion of substantive constitutional rights to homosexuals is likely to continue if the Court can find a principled basis for not extending those rights to other sexual minorities. II. FULL FAITH AND CREDIT AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE PREDICTIONS To begin, this Article addresses one of the easy questions: whether the Full Faith and Credit Clause would force states to recognize same-sex marriage. When same-sex marriage first emerged in the United States,4 the press and even some legal experts predicted that the Full Faith and Credit Clause would force every other state to treat same-sex couples as married as long as the couple married in a haven state.5 This was a thoroughly uninformed prediction fueled by a complete confusion of the choice of law and strands of full faith and credit jurisprudence.6 Of course, just because it was uninformed did not mean that it was not widely repeated.7 For the Full Faith and Credit Clause to have this effect, one must assume that the clause operates like a magician's in which one is flipped over and the rest of the deck goes with it. Behind this false card trick assumption lies the truth that the Full Faith and Credit Clause and its implementing statute require a state to recognize, mostly without question, another state's litigated judgments, even if the judgment is demonstrably incorrect on a legal or factual issue.8 Courts treat divorces as litigated judgments; thus, assuming the rendering court has jurisdiction, a divorce must be recognized even if granted for reasons that the recognizing state would not allow.9 By analogizing to divorces, proponents of samesex marriage argued that a state forbidding same-sex unions would not be able to refuse recognition to such a union as long as it was lawfully created in another state.10 Although there are multiple and obvious problems with this line of reasoning, this Article confines itself to just two of these problems. First, a marriage is not a litigated judgment. A marriage is unlike a divorce, or any other litigated judgment, in that there is no such thing as a contested marriage. Both parties have to agree in order to get married. Suppose that Pat wants to marry Jordan, but Jordan is not keen on the idea. Would the couple then head to the courthouse and appear in front of a judge who will decide whether they are to be married? …" @default.
• W3123099977 created "2021-02-01" @default.
• W3123099977 creator A5034522212 @default.
• W3123099977 date "2008-11-01" @default.
• W3123099977 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W3123099977 title "The Coming Collision: Romer and State Defense of Marriage Acts" @default.
• W3123099977 hasPublicationYear "2008" @default.
• W3123099977 type Work @default.
• W3123099977 sameAs 3123099977 @default.
• W3123099977 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W3123099977 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3123099977 hasAuthorship W3123099977A5034522212 @default.
• W3123099977 hasConcept C11413529 @default.
• W3123099977 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W3123099977 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W3123099977 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W3123099977 hasConcept C2776154427 @default.
• W3123099977 hasConcept C2776512386 @default.
• W3123099977 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W3123099977 hasConcept C2779160553 @default.
• W3123099977 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W3123099977 hasConcept C48103436 @default.
• W3123099977 hasConcept C71043370 @default.
• W3123099977 hasConceptScore W3123099977C11413529 @default.
• W3123099977 hasConceptScore W3123099977C144024400 @default.
• W3123099977 hasConceptScore W3123099977C17744445 @default.
• W3123099977 hasConceptScore W3123099977C199539241 @default.
• W3123099977 hasConceptScore W3123099977C2776154427 @default.
• W3123099977 hasConceptScore W3123099977C2776512386 @default.
• W3123099977 hasConceptScore W3123099977C2778272461 @default.
• W3123099977 hasConceptScore W3123099977C2779160553 @default.
• W3123099977 hasConceptScore W3123099977C41008148 @default.
• W3123099977 hasConceptScore W3123099977C48103436 @default.
• W3123099977 hasConceptScore W3123099977C71043370 @default.
• W3123099977 hasIssue "6" @default.
• W3123099977 hasLocation W31230999771 @default.
• W3123099977 hasOpenAccess W3123099977 @default.
• W3123099977 hasPrimaryLocation W31230999771 @default.
• W3123099977 hasRelatedWork W1492482423 @default.
• W3123099977 hasRelatedWork W1533010936 @default.
• W3123099977 hasRelatedWork W1534093028 @default.
• W3123099977 hasRelatedWork W1551375690 @default.
• W3123099977 hasRelatedWork W1583786052 @default.
• W3123099977 hasRelatedWork W190872259 @default.
• W3123099977 hasRelatedWork W1944652546 @default.
• W3123099977 hasRelatedWork W2203301501 @default.
• W3123099977 hasRelatedWork W2213485668 @default.
• W3123099977 hasRelatedWork W2224713180 @default.
• W3123099977 hasRelatedWork W2260465501 @default.
• W3123099977 hasRelatedWork W2548845624 @default.
• W3123099977 hasRelatedWork W3121698558 @default.
• W3123099977 hasRelatedWork W3124369651 @default.
• W3123099977 hasRelatedWork W3125082885 @default.
• W3123099977 hasRelatedWork W3126066435 @default.
• W3123099977 hasRelatedWork W342278660 @default.
• W3123099977 hasRelatedWork W8859516 @default.
• W3123099977 hasRelatedWork W94833462 @default.
• W3123099977 hasRelatedWork W3123776385 @default.
• W3123099977 hasVolume "2008" @default.
• W3123099977 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3123099977 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3123099977 magId "3123099977" @default.
• W3123099977 workType "article" @default.