Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorNicolas, Peter
dc.date2021-11-25T13:35:09.000
dc.date.accessioned2021-11-26T11:54:40Z
dc.date.available2021-11-26T11:54:40Z
dc.date.issued2017-04-07T13:09:15-07:00
dc.identifieryjlf/vol27/iss2/4
dc.identifier.contextkey9990330
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13051/7075
dc.description.abstractIn this Article, I identify and critically examine three substantive criticisms raised by the dissents in the Supreme Court's 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which struck down state laws and constitutional provisions barring same-sex couples from marrying within the state or having their out-of-state marriages recognized by the state. First, that the majority improperly framed the right at issue broadly as the right to marriage instead of narrowly as the right to same-sex marriage, conflicting with the Court's holding in Washington v. Glucksberg that in fundamental rights cases the right at issue must be framed narrowly, and in turn opening the door to the Court finding an analogous right to polygamous marriage.
dc.titleFundamental Rights in a Post-Obergefell World
dc.source.journaltitleYale Journal of Law & Feminism
refterms.dateFOA2021-11-26T11:54:40Z
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yjlf/vol27/iss2/4
dc.identifier.legacyfulltexthttps://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1361&context=yjlf&unstamped=1


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
Peter_Nicolas.pdf
Size:
1.842Mb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record