Litigating Same-Sex Marriage
Might the Courts Actually Be Bastions of Rationality
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 6103754 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Evan Gerstmann (Loyola Marymount University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2005 |
| Volume | 38 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 217-220 |
| Publication date | 2005-04-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | PS Political Science & Politics (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1049-0965 • E-ISSN: 1537-5935 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s1049096505056325 |
| OpenAlex | W2124465107 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 3 |
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
Institution · Mill · Political science · Politics · Rationality · Sociology · Supreme court · History · Law · Legal and Constitutional Studies · Legal Systems and Judicial Processes · Reproductive Health and Technologies
| Citations per year | 0.14 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2005 - 2010 (6) |
| Highly cited | No |