首页> 外文OA文献 >Whither Sexual Orientation Analysis?: The Proper Methodology When Due Process and Equal Protection Intersect
【2h】

Whither Sexual Orientation Analysis?: The Proper Methodology When Due Process and Equal Protection Intersect

机译:是性倾向分析吗?:正当程序与平等保护相交时的正确方法

摘要

This Article suggests that there is Proper Methodology that courts apply when reviewing cases at the intersection of due process and equal protection. Briefly, courts operate under a rule that heightened review applies if either a fundamental right or a suspect class is involved in a case, and that rational basis review applies if neither is involved (the u22Ruleu22). Two primary exceptions to the Rule exist, and this Article identifies them as the u22Logicalu22 and u22Ill Motivesu22 Exceptions. The Logical Exception applies when a court need not apply heightened review because a law fails rational basis review. The Ill Motives Exception applies when a law fails rational basis review because the sole purpose behind a law is an ill motive. The Rule and the Exceptions provide the Proper Methodology to be applied in intersection cases. The genesis for the Article arose in the context of analyzing the constitutionality of laws that ban marriage between persons of the same sex, popularly called u22gay marriage.u22 Notwithstanding the fact that the right to marry is a fundamental right, confusion exists as to whether gay marriage bans are subject to rational basis review or heightened scrutiny. Some of the confusion exists because the Supreme Court has not decided where sexual orientation fits in the equal protection paradigm. But this void is responsible for only part of the confusion. This Article exposes another dangerous source of confusion-a tendency to allow popular discourse to shape the legal analysis in sexual orientation discrimination cases, resulting in what this Article calls the u22Collapsible Error.u22 Courts commit the Collapsible Error when they conflate the equal protection question (u22Are gays a suspect class?u22) into the due process question (u22Is there an underlying fundamental right?u22) by defining the underlying right by the group targeted by the law-gay marriage-and then limiting the analysis to substantive due process (u22Is there a fundamental right to gay marriage?u22). This Article explores why committing the Collapsible Error is a denial of the due process and equal protection rights of gays because it results in an unjustifiable deviation from the Proper Methodology that is applied in cases involving other types of discrimination. Understanding and applying the Proper Methodology is not only a matter of judicial integrity, but it also is an opportunity to bring gays into the Constitutionu27s fold.
机译:本文建议,在正当程序与平等保护的交汇处审查案件时,法院应采用适当的方法。简而言之,法院的运作规则是:案件涉及基本权利或嫌疑人类别,则应加强审查;如果两者均不涉及,则适用理性基础的审查( u22Rule u22)。该规则存在两个主要例外,本文将它们标识为 u22Logical u22和 u22Ill Motives u22例外。当法院因法律未能通过合理的依据审查而无需进行进一步审查时,则适用逻辑例外。当法律未能通过合理的依据审查时,就会适用“不良动机”例外,因为法律背后的唯一目的是不良动机。规则和例外提供了适用于相交情况的正确方法。该条的起源是在分析禁止同性婚姻的法律的合宪性的背景下提出的,俗称“同性婚姻”。尽管结婚权是一项基本权利,但在婚姻权利上存在困惑同性婚姻禁令是否需要接受合理的依据审查或加强审查。之所以存在一些混乱,是因为最高法院尚未决定性取向在平等保护范式中的适合位置。但是,这种空虚只是造成部分混乱的原因。该条款揭露了另一个危险的混乱根源-一种倾向,这种倾向允许流行的言论影响性取向歧视案件中的法律分析,从而导致该条款称为“可折叠错误”。法院在合并平等保护时即犯了可折叠错误。问题(同志是可疑的同伙吗?)通过正当法律目标人群确定基本权利,然后限制分析范围,从而将其纳入正当程序问题(是否存在基本的基本权利?)进行实质性正当程序(同性婚姻有基本权利吗?)。本文探讨了为什么犯下可折叠错误会否定同性恋的正当程序和平等保护权,因为它导致与适用于涉及其他类型歧视案件的适当方法产生不合理的背离。理解和运用正确的方法不仅是司法公正的问题,而且还是将同性恋带入宪法的机会。

著录项

  • 作者

    Rush Sharon E.;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2008
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号