Goodridge v. Department of Public Health

798 N.E.2d 941 440 Mass. 309, 798 N.E.2d 941 (Cite as: 440 Mass.
309, 798 N.E.2d 941)
Page 1
Briefs and Other Related Documents Judges and Attorneys Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk. Hillary GOODRIDGE & others FN1 FN1. Julie Goodridge, David Wilson, Robert Compton, Michael Horgan, Edward Balmelli, Maureen Brodoff, Ellen Wade, Gary Chalmers, Richard Linnell, Heidi Norton, Gina Smith, Gloria Bailey, and Linda Davies. v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH & another.FN2 FN2. Commissioner Health. Nov. 18, 2003. Same-sex couples denied marriage licenses filed action for declaratory judgment against Department and Commissioner of Public Health, alleging that department policy and practice of denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples violated numerous provisions of state constitution. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the Superior Court Department, Suffolk County, Thomas E. Connolly, J., entered summary judgment for department, and plaintiffs appealed. The Supreme Judicial Court granted parties' requests for direct appellate review, and, in an opinion by Marshall, C.J., held that: (1) marriage licensing statutes were not susceptible of interpretation permitting qualified same sex couples to obtain marriage licenses, and (2) as matter of first of Public
impression, limitation of protections, benefits and obligations of civil marriage to individuals of opposite sexes lacked rational basis and violated state constitutional equal protection principles. Vacated and remanded. Greaney, J., concurred with opinion. Spina, J., dissented with opinion in which Sosman and Cordy, JJ., joined. Sosman, J., dissented with opinion in which Spina and Cordy, JJ., joined. Cordy, J, dissented with opinion in which Spina and Sosman, JJ., joined. West Headnotes [1] Marriage 253 14
253 Marriage 253k12 Essentials 253k14 k. Statutory requirements. Most Cited Cases Marriage licensing statute is both a gatekeeping and a public records statute; it sets minimum qualifications for obtaining a marriage license and directs city and town clerks, the registrar, and the department of public health to keep and maintain certain vital records of civil marriages. M.G.L.A. c. 207, 19, 20. [2] Marriage 253 17.5(1)
253 Marriage 253k17.5 Same-Sex and Other NonTraditional Unions 253k17.5(1) k. In general. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 253k4.1, 253k14) Marriage licensing statute was not
2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
798 N.E.2d 941 440 Mass. 309, 798 N.E.2d 941 (Cite as: 440 Mass. 309, 798 N.E.2d 941)
Page 2
susceptible of interpretation permitting qualified same sex couples to obtain marriage licenses; legislature's use of undefined common-law term marriage incorporated its common-law and quotidian meaning concerning genders of marriage partners, and silence of consanguinity provisions of statute with respect to consanguinity of same-sex marriage applicants evinced legislative intent not to permit licensing of same-sex couples. M.G.L.A. c. 207, 19, 20. [3] Statutes 361 1091
marriage in the marriage licensing statute confirms its intent to hew to the term's common-law and quotidian meaning concerning the genders of the marriage partners. M.G.L.A. c. 207, 19, 20. [6] Marriage 253 17.5(1)
361 Statutes 361III Construction 361III(B) Plain Language; Plain, Ordinary, or Common Meaning 361k1091 k. In general. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 361k188, 361k181(1)) Courts construing statutes interpret them to carry out the legislature's intent, determined by the words of a statute interpreted according to the ordinary and approved usage of the language. [4] Marriage 253 14
253 Marriage 253k17.5 Same-Sex and Other NonTraditional Unions 253k17.5(1) k. In general. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 253k4.1, 253k14) Silence of consanguinity provisions of marriage licensing statute with respect to consanguinity of same-sex marriage applicants evinced legislative intent not to permit licensing of same-sex couples. M.G.L.A. c. 207, 12. [7] Marriage 253 26.1
253 Marriage 253k12 Essentials 253k14 k. Statutory requirements. Most Cited Cases Definition of marriage, as such term is employed in the marriage licensing statute, derives from the common law. M.G.L.A. c. 207, 19, 20. [5] Marriage 253 14
253 Marriage 253k26 Solemnization or Celebration 253k26.1 k. In general. Most Cited Cases In Massachusetts, civil marriage is a wholly secular institution; no religious ceremony has ever been required to validate a Massachusetts marriage. [8] Divorce 134 1
134 Divorce 134I Nature and Form of Remedy 134k1 k. Origin and nature of remedy in general. Most Cited Cases Marriage 253 12.1
253 Marriage 253k12 Essentials 253k14 k. Statutory requirements. Most Cited Cases Legislature's use of the undefined word
253 Marriage 253k12 Essentials 253k12.1 k. In general. Most Cited Cases While only the parties can mutually assent to marriage, the terms of the
Page 3
marriage, who may marry and what obligations, benefits, and liabilities attach to civil marriage, are set by the Commonwealth; conversely, while only the parties can agree to end the marriage, absent the death of one of them or a marriage void ab initio, the Commonwealth defines the exit terms. M.G.L.A. c. 208 et seq. [9] Marriage 253 2
253 Marriage 253k2 k. Power to regulate and control. Most Cited Cases Civil marriage is created and regulated through exercise of the police power. [10] States 360 21(2)
360 States 360II Government and Officers 360k21 Government Powers 360k21(2) k. Police power. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 92k1066, 92k81) Police power, now more commonly termed the state's regulatory authority, is an old-fashioned term for the Commonwealth's lawmaking authority, as bounded by the liberty and equality guarantees of the Massachusetts Constitution and its express delegation of power from the people to their government; in broad terms, it is the legislature's power to enact rules to regulate conduct, to the extent that such laws are necessary to secure the health, safety, good order, comfort, or general welfare of the community. M.G.L.A. Const. Pt. 1, Art. 1; M.G.L.A. Const. Amend.Art. 106. [11] Marriage 253 1
Cited Cases Statutory benefits accessible only by way of marriage license include: joint state income tax filing; tenancy by the entirety; extension of benefit of homestead protection to one's spouse and children; automatic rights to inherit property of deceased spouse who does not leave a will; rights of elective share and of dower; entitlement to wages owed to deceased employee; eligibility to continue certain businesses of deceased spouse; right to share medical policy of one's spouse; 39-week continuation of health coverage for spouse of person who is laid off or dies; preferential options under state's pension system; preferential benefits in state's medical program; access to veterans' spousal benefits and preferences; financial protections for spouses of certain state employees killed in performance of duty; equitable division of marital property on divorce; temporary and permanent alimony rights; right to separate support on separation that does not result in divorce; and right to bring claims for wrongful death and loss of consortium, and for funeral and burial expenses and punitive damages resulting from tort actions. M.G.L.A. c. 31, 26; c. 32, 12(2), 100103; c. 32B, 2; c. 62C, 6; c. 112, 53; c. 115, 1; c. 149, 178A, 178C; c. 175, 108, 110G; c. 184, 7; c. 188, 1; c. 189 et seq.; c. 190, 1; c. 191, 15; c. 208, 17, 34; c. 209, 32; c. 228, 1; c. 229, 1, 2; 130 CMR 515.012(A). [12] Marriage 253 1
253 Marriage 253k1 k. Nature of the obligation. Most
253 Marriage 253k1 k. Nature of the obligation. Most Cited Cases Exclusive marital benefits that are not directly tied to property rights include the presumptions of legitimacy and parentage
Page 4
of children born to a married couple, and evidentiary rights, such as the prohibition against spouses testifying against one another about their private conversations, applicable in both civil and criminal cases. M.G.L.A. c. 46, 4B; c. 209C, 6; c. 233, 20. [13] Marriage 253 1
253 Marriage 253k1 k. Nature of the obligation. Most Cited Cases Statutory benefits of a personal nature available only to married individuals include: qualification for bereavement or medical leave to care for individuals related by blood or marriage; automatic family member preference to make medical decisions for incompetent or disabled spouse who does not have contrary health care proxy; application of predictable rules of child custody, visitation, support, and removal outof-state when married parents divorce; priority rights to administer estate of deceased spouse who dies without a will, and requirement that surviving spouse must consent to appointment of any other person as administrator; and right to interment in lot or tomb owned by one's deceased spouse. M.G.L.A. c. 38, 13; c. 113, 8; c. 114, 2933; c. 149, 52D; c. 208, 19, 20, 28, 30, 31. [14] Children OutOfWedlock 76H 20.1 OfWedlock76H Children OutOfWedlock 76HII Custody 76Hk20.1 k. Rights of mother. Most Cited Cases Children OutOfWedlock 76H 21(1)
OfWedlock76H Children OutOfWedlock 76HIII Support 76Hk21 Duty to Support 76Hk21(1) k. In general. Most Cited Cases Commonwealth's strong public policy is to abolish legal distinctions between marital and nonmarital children in providing for the support and care of minors. [15] Constitutional Law 92 3736
92 Constitutional Law 92XXVI Equal Protection 92XXVI(E) Particular Issues and Applications 92XXVI(E)16 Families and Children 92k3736 k. Marriage and divorce in general. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 92k225.1) Constitutional Law 92 4384
92 Constitutional Law 92XXVII Due Process 92XXVII(G) Particular Issues and Applications 92XXVII(G)18 Families and Children 92k4383 Marital Relationship 92k4384 k. In general. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 92k274(5)) Marriage 253 1
253 Marriage 253k1 k. Nature of the obligation. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 92k82(10)) For purposes of state constitutional analysis, civil marriage enjoys a dual, and in some sense paradoxical, status as both a
Page 5
state-conferred benefit, with its attendant obligations, and a multi-faceted personal interest of fundamental importance; the right to marry is different from rights deemed fundamental for equal protection and due process purposes, because the state could, in theory, abolish all civil marriage while it cannot, for example, abolish all private property rights. M.G.L.A. Const. Pt. 1, Arts. 1, 10; M.G.L.A. Const.Amend. Art. 106. [16] Marriage 253 2
[18] Marriage 253
253 Marriage 253k2 k. Power to regulate and control. Most Cited Cases Regulatory power of the Commonwealth over civil marriage is broad, as is the Commonwealth's discretion to award public benefits. [19] Marriage 253 54(1)
253 Marriage 253k2 k. Power to regulate and control. Most Cited Cases Because civil marriage is central to the lives of individuals and the welfare of the community, state laws assiduously protect the individual's right to marry against undue government incursion; laws may not interfere directly and substantially with the right to marry. M.G.L.A. Const. Pt. 1, Art. 1; M.G.L.A. Const.Amend. Art. 106. [17] Constitutional Law 92 1248
253 Marriage 253k54 Effect of Informal or Invalid Marriage or Union 253k54(1) k. In general. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 253k54) Individuals who have the choice to marry each other and nevertheless choose not to may properly be denied the legal benefits of marriage. [20] Constitutional Law 92 617
92 Constitutional Law 92XI Right to Privacy 92XI(B) Particular Issues and Applications 92k1247 Family Law; Marriage 92k1248 k. In general. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 92k82(10)) Right to marry, or to choose to marry, is at the core of individual privacy and autonomy, residing with the individual rather than with a couple; while two individuals who wish to marry may be equally aggrieved by state action denying them that opportunity, they do not share the liberty and equality interests at stake. M.G.L.A. Const. Pt. 1, Art. 1; M.G.L.A. Const.Amend. Art. 106.
92 Constitutional Law 92V Construction and Operation of Constitutional Provisions 92V(A) General Rules of Construction 92k616 Relation to Constitutions of Other Jurisdictions 92k617 k. In general. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 92k18) Massachusetts Constitution protects matters of personal liberty against government incursion as zealously, and often more so, than does the federal Constitution, even where both constitutions employ essentially the same language. M.G.L.A. Const. Pt. 1, Art. 1; M.G.L.A. Const.Amend. Art. 106. [21] Constitutional Law 92 92 Constitutional Law 1079
Page 6
92VII Constitutional Rights in General 92VII(B) Particular Constitutional Rights 92k1079 k. Personal liberty. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 92k82(6.1)) Constitutional Law 92 2978
92 Constitutional Law 92XXV Class Legislation; Discrimination and Classification in General 92k2978 k. Public assistance and benefits. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 92k82(6.1)) Individual liberty and equality safeguards of the Massachusetts constitution protect both freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into protected spheres of life and freedom to partake in benefits created by the state for the common good. M.G.L.A. Const. Pt. 1, Arts. 1, 10; M.G.L.A. Const.Amend. Art. 106. [22] Abortion and Birth Control 4 133 4 Abortion and Birth Control 4k132 Contraceptives and Birth Control 4k133 k. In general. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 92k82(10)) Constitutional Law 92 1094
92 Constitutional Law 92XXVII Due Process 92XXVII(G) Particular Issues and Applications 92XXVII(G)18 Families and Children 92k4383 Marital Relationship 92k4384 k. In general. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 92k274(5)) Constitutional Law 92 4450
92 Constitutional Law 92XXVII Due Process 92XXVII(G) Particular Issues and Applications 92XXVII(G)22 Privacy and Sexual Matters 92k4450 k. In general. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 92k274(5)) Marriage 253 1
253 Marriage 253k1 k. Nature of the obligation. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 92k82(10)) Parent and Child 285 1
92 Constitutional Law 92VII Constitutional Rights in General 92VII(B) Particular Constitutional Rights 92k1094 k. Sex and procreation. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 92k82(10)) Constitutional Law 92 4384
285 Parent and Child 285k1 k. The relation in general. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 92k82(10)) Whether and whom to marry, how to express sexual intimacy, and whether and how to establish a family are among the most basic of every individual's liberty and due process rights as secured by the state constitution. M.G.L.A. Const. Pt. 1, Arts. 1 , 10; M.G.L.A. Const.Amend. Art. 106. [23] Constitutional Law 92 92 Constitutional Law 3041
Page 7
92XXVI Equal Protection 92XXVI(A) In General 92XXVI(A)5 Scope of Doctrine in General 92k3038 Discrimination and Classification 92k3041 k. Similarly situated persons; like circumstances. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 92k211(1)) Central to personal freedom and security as secured by the state constitution is the assurance that the laws will apply equally to persons in similar situations. M.G.L.A. Const. Pt. 1, Arts. 1, 10; M.G.L.A. Const.Amend. Art. 106. [24] Constitutional Law 92 1056
(Formerly 92k82(1)) Under both the equality and liberty guarantees of the state constitution, regulatory authority must, at very least, serve a legitimate purpose in a rational way; a statute must bear a reasonable relation to a permissible legislative objective. M.G.L.A. Const. Pt. 1, Arts. 1, 10; M.G.L.A. Const.Amend. Art. 106. [26] Constitutional Law 92 1055
92 Constitutional Law 92VII Constitutional Rights in General 92VII(A) In General 92k1056 k. Arbitrariness. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 92k82(1)) Massachusetts constitution requires, at a minimum, that the exercise of the state's regulatory authority not be arbitrary or capricious; the Massachusetts constitution empowers the legislature to enact only those orders, laws, statutes, and ordinances wholesome and reasonable, that are not repugnant or contrary to the constitution, and that, in the legislature's judgment, advance the good and welfare of the Commonwealth, its government, and all of its subjects. M.G.L.A. Const. Pt. 2, C. 1, 1, Art. 4. [25] Constitutional Law 92 1055
92 Constitutional Law 92VII Constitutional Rights in General 92VII(A) In General 92k1055 k. Reasonableness or rationality. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 92k82(1)) Any law failing to satisfy the basic state constitutional standards of rationality is void. M.G.L.A. Const. Pt. 1, Arts. 1, 10; M.G.L.A. Const.Amend. Art. 106. [27] Constitutional Law 92 3051
92 Constitutional Law 92XXVI Equal Protection 92XXVI(A) In General 92XXVI(A)6 Levels of Scrutiny 92k3051 k. Differing levels set forth or compared. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 92k213.1(2)) Constitutional Law 92 3877
92 Constitutional Law 92VII Constitutional Rights in General 92VII(A) In General 92k1055 k. Reasonableness or rationality. Most Cited Cases
92 Constitutional Law 92XXVII Due Process 92XXVII(B) Protections Provided and Deprivations Prohibited in General 92k3877 k. Reasonableness, rationality, and relationship to object. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 92k251.3) Constitutional Law 92 92 Constitutional Law 3901
Page 8
92XXVII Due Process 92XXVII(B) Protections Provided and Deprivations Prohibited in General 92k3901 k. Levels of scrutiny; strict or heightened scrutiny. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 92k251.3) Where a statute implicates a fundamental right or uses a suspect classification, a court conducting state constitutional equal protection or due process analysis employs strict judicial scrutiny; for all other statutes, it employs the rational basis test. M.G.L.A. Const. Pt. 1, Arts. 1, 10; M.G.L.A. Const.Amend. Art. 106. [28] Constitutional Law 92 3902
For equal protection challenges under the state constitution, the rational basis test requires that an impartial lawmaker could logically believe that the classification would serve a legitimate public purpose that transcends the harm to the members of the disadvantaged class. M.G.L.A. Const. Pt. 1, Art. 1; M.G.L.A. Const.Amend. Art. 106. [30] Constitutional Law 92 3057
92 Constitutional Law 92XXVII Due Process 92XXVII(B) Protections Provided and Deprivations Prohibited in General 92k3902 k. Police power, relationship to due process. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 92k251.3) For due process claims pursuant to the state constitution, rational basis analysis requires that statutes bear a real and substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or some other phase of the general welfare. M.G.L.A. Const. Pt. 1, Art. 10. [29] Constitutional Law 92 3053
92 Constitutional Law 92XXVI Equal Protection 92XXVI(A) In General 92XXVI(A)6 Levels of Scrutiny 92k3052 Rational Basis Standard; Reasonableness 92k3057 k. Statutes and other written regulations and rules. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 92k213.1(2)) Constitutional Law 92 3877
92 Constitutional Law 92XXVI Equal Protection 92XXVI(A) In General 92XXVI(A)6 Levels of Scrutiny 92k3052 Rational Basis Standard; Reasonableness 92k3053 k. In general. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 92k213.1(2))
92 Constitutional Law 92XXVII Due Process 92XXVII(B) Protections Provided and Deprivations Prohibited in General 92k3877 k. Reasonableness, rationality, and relationship to object. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 92k251.3) For purposes of due process and equal protection statutory challenges pursuant to the state constitution, not every asserted rational relationship is a conceivable one, and rationality review is not toothless. M.G.L.A. Const. Pt. 1, Art. 1; M.G.L.A. Const.Amend. Art. 106. [31] Constitutional Law 92 3438
92 Constitutional Law 92XXVI Equal Protection 92XXVI(B) Particular Classes
Page 9
92XXVI(B)12 Sexual Orientation 92k3436 Families and Children 92k3438 k. Marriage and civil unions. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 92k225.1) Marriage 253 4.1
92k3438 k. Marriage and civil unions. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 92k225.1) Marriage 253 14
253 Marriage 253k4 Persons Who May Marry 253k4.1 k. In general. Most Cited Cases Marriage 253 14
253 Marriage 253k12 Essentials 253k14 k. Statutory requirements. Most Cited Cases Marriage 253 17.5(1)
253 Marriage 253k12 Essentials 253k14 k. Statutory requirements. Most Cited Cases Limitation of protections, benefits and obligations of civil marriage to individuals of opposite sexes, by interpreting statutory term marriage as employed in marriage licensing statutes to apply only to malefemale unions, lacked rational basis and violated state constitutional equal protection principles; limitation was not justified by state's interest in providing favorable setting for procreation, and had no rational relationship to state's interests in ensuring that children be raised in optimal setting and in conservation of state and private financial resources. M.G.L.A. Const. Pt. 1, Art. 1; M.G.L.A. Const.Amend. Art. 106; M.G.L.A. c. 207, 19, 20. [32] Constitutional Law 92 3438
253 Marriage 253k17.5 Same-Sex and Other NonTraditional Unions 253k17.5(1) k. In general. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 253k4.1) For purposes of rational basis analysis of a state constitutional equal protection challenge to the marriage licensing statute as applied to otherwise qualified same-sex couples, state's interest in providing favorable setting for procreation did not afford rational basis for interpretation of marriage licensing statutes to exclude same-sex applicants; laws of civil marriage did not privilege procreative heterosexual intercourse, contained no requirement that applicants for marriage license attest to their ability or intention to conceive children by coitus, condition marriage upon fertility, permit divorce for infertility, or require consummation of marriage by coition. M.G.L.A. Const. Pt. 1, Arts. 1, 10; M.G.L.A. Const.Amend. Art. 106; M.G.L.A. c. 207, 19, 20. [33] Marriage 253 12.1
92 Constitutional Law 92XXVI Equal Protection 92XXVI(B) Particular Classes 92XXVI(B)12 Sexual Orientation 92k3436 Families and Children
253 Marriage 253k12 Essentials 253k12.1 k. In general. Most Cited Cases Marriage 253 14
Page 10
253 Marriage 253k12 Essentials 253k14 k. Statutory requirements. Most Cited Cases Marriage 253 17.5(1)
253 Marriage 253k17.5 Same-Sex and Other NonTraditional Unions 253k17.5(1) k. In general. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 253k4.1) For purposes of rational basis analysis of a state constitutional equal protection challenge to the marriage licensing statute as applied to otherwise qualified same-sex couples, it is the exclusive and permanent commitment of marriage partners to one another, not the begetting of children, that is the sine qua non of civil marriage. M.G.L.A. Const. Pt. 1, Art. 1; M.G.L.A. Const.Amend. Art. 106. [34] Infants 211 1896
(Formerly 253k4.1, 253k14) For purposes of rational basis analysis of state constitutional equal protection challenge to marriage licensing statute as applied to otherwise qualified same-sex couples, interpreting marriage licensing statutes to exclude same-sex applicants had no rational relationship to state's interest in ensuring that children be raised in optimal setting, absent any evidence that forbidding marriage to people of same sex would increase number of couples choosing to enter into opposite-sex marriages in order to have and raise children; best interests of the child standard did not turn on parents' sexual orientation or marital status. M.G.L.A. Const. Pt. 1, Art. 1; M.G.L.A. Const.Amend. Art. 106; M.G.L.A. c. 207, 19, 20. [35] Children OutOfWedlock 76H 1 OfWedlock76H Children OutOfWedlock 76HI Status in General 76Hk1 k. Name and status; parental relation in general. Most Cited Cases Infants 211 1412
211 Infants 211XIV Dependency, Permanent Custody, and Termination of Rights; Children in Need 211XIV(D) Dependency, Permanency, and Termination Factors; Children in Need of Aid 211XIV(D)1 In General 211k1896 k. Sexual orientation and transgender issues. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 211k154.1, 253k4.1, 253k14) Marriage 253 17.5(1)
253 Marriage 253k17.5 Same-Sex and Other NonTraditional Unions 253k17.5(1) k. In general. Most Cited Cases
211 Infants 211IX Child Protection 211IX(A) In General 211k1412 k. Interest, role, and authority of government in general. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 211k11.5) State has no power to provide varying levels of protection to children based on the circumstances of birth. M.G.L.A. c. 209C, 6. [36] Marriage 253 253 Marriage 17.5(1)
Page 11
253k17.5 Same-Sex and Other NonTraditional Unions 253k17.5(1) k. In general. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 253k4.1, 253k14) For purposes of rational basis analysis of state constitutional equal protection challenge to marriage licensing statute as applied to otherwise qualified same-sex couples, interpreting marriage licensing statutes to exclude same-sex applicants had no rational relationship to state's interest in conserving scarce state and private financial resources, absent any evidence to support state's assertion that same-sex couples were less financially interdependent than opposite-sex couples, where state marriage laws did not condition receipt of public and private financial benefits to married individuals on demonstration of financial dependence on each other. M.G.L.A. Const. Pt. 1, Art. 1; M.G.L.A. Const.Amend. Art. 106; M.G.L.A. c. 207, 19, 20. [37] Constitutional Law 92 2451
92k2488 k. Policy. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 92k70.3(3)) Supreme Judicial Court owes great deference to the legislature to decide social and policy issues, but it is the traditional and settled role of courts to decide constitutional issues. [38] Marriage 253 17.5(1)
253 Marriage 253k17.5 Same-Sex and Other NonTraditional Unions 253k17.5(1) k. In general. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 92k18) Marriage 253 17.5(2)
253 Marriage 253k17.5 Same-Sex and Other NonTraditional Unions 253k17.5(2) k. Effect of foreign union. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 92k18) States 360 5(1)
92 Constitutional Law 92XX Separation of Powers 92XX(C) Judicial Powers and Functions 92XX(C)1 In General 92k2451 k. Interpretation of constitution in general. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 92k67) Constitutional Law 92 2488
92 Constitutional Law 92XX Separation of Powers 92XX(C) Judicial Powers and Functions 92XX(C)2 Encroachment on Legislature 92k2485 Inquiry Into Legislative Judgment
360 States 360I Political Status and Relations 360I(A) In General 360k5 Relations Among States Under Constitution of United States 360k5(1) k. In general. Most Cited Cases Potential for interstate conflict was not valid basis upon which to decline to expand institution of civil marriage in Massachusetts to include same-sex couples; subject to minimum requirements of Fourteenth Amendment, state was free to address difficult issues of individual liberty in manner demanded by its own constitution. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14; M.G.L.A. c. 207, 19, 20.
Page 12
[39] Statutes 361
1533
361 Statutes 361VIII Validity 361k1532 Effect of Partial Invalidity; Severability 361k1533 k. In general. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 361k64(1)) Court preserves as much of a statute as may be preserved in the face of a successful constitutional challenge. M.G.L.A. c. 4, 6. [40] Bigamy 55 1
253k12 Essentials 253k14 k. Statutory requirements. Most Cited Cases Supreme Judicial Court reformulated definition of marriage, as employed in marriage licensing statutes, to mean voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to exclusion of all others. M.G.L.A. c. 207, 19, 20. [42] Marriage 253 17.5(1)
55 Bigamy 55k1 k. Nature and elements of offense. Most Cited Cases Marriage 253 4.1
253 Marriage 253k4 Persons Who May Marry 253k4.1 k. In general. Most Cited Cases Marriage 253 10
253 Marriage 253k17.5 Same-Sex and Other NonTraditional Unions 253k17.5(1) k. In general. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 253k14) Barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the equal protection provisions of the Massachusetts constitution. M.G.L.A. Const. Pt. 1, Art. 1; M.G.L.A. Const.Amend. Art. 106; M.G.L.A. c. 207, 19, 20. West Codenotes Unconstitutional as AppliedM.G.L.A. c. 207, 19.M.G.L.A. c. 207, 20. **946 *310 Mary Lisa Bonauto (Gary D. Buseck with her) for Hillary Goodridge. Judith S. Yogman, Assistant Attorney General, for Department of Public Health. The following submitted briefs for amici curiae: Joseph P.J. Vrabel, Mark D. Mason, Springfield, & Martin W. Healy, Boston, for Massachusetts Bar Association. Leslie Cooper & James D. Esseks, of New York, Jon W. Davidson& Shannon Minter, of California, Elliot M. Mincberg**947 &
253 Marriage 253k4 Persons Who May Marry 253k10 k. Consanguinity or affinity. Most Cited Cases Marriage 253 14
253 Marriage 253k12 Essentials 253k14 k. Statutory requirements. Most Cited Cases Statutory provisions concerning consanguinity or polygamous marriages are to be construed in a gender neutral manner. M.G.L.A. c. 207, 1, 2, 4. [41] Marriage 253 253 Marriage 14
Page 13
Judith E. Schaeffer, of the District of Columbia, & John Reinstein, Sarah R. Wunsch, Paul Holtzman, & Hugh Dun Rappaport, Boston, for Urban League of Eastern Massachusetts & others. Paul Benjamin Linton, of Illinois, & Thomas M. Harvey, Boston, for Robert J. Araujo & others. Dwight G. Duncan, North Dartmouth, for Massachusetts Family Institute, Inc., & others. Glen Lavy, of Arizona, Stephen W. Reed, of California, & Bertin C. Emmons, Boston, for National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, Inc., & others. Robert W. Ash & Vincent P. McCarthy, of Connecticut, & Philip E. Cleary for The Common Good Foundation & others. *311 Don Stenberg, Attorney General of Nebraska, Mark L. Shurtleff, Attorney General of Utah, Brent A. Burnett, Assistant Attorney General of Utah, & Mark Barnett, Attorney General of South Dakota, for the State of Utah & others. Chester Darling, Boston, & Michael Williams, Quincy, for Massachusetts Citizens Alliance & another. Daniel Avila for The Catholic Action League of Massachusetts. Joshua K. Baker, of California, & Robert G. Caprera for Jose Martin de Agar & others. Wendy J. Herdlein, of California, & James R. Knudsen for the Honorable Philip Travis & others. Steven W. Fitschen, of Virginia, for The
National Legal Foundation. Jeffrey A. Shafer & David R. Langdon, of Ohio, William C. Duncan, of Utah, & Wendy J. Herdlein, of California, for Marriage Law Project. Lisa Rae, Kenneth Elmore, Arthur Berney, & Josephine Ross for The Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry & others. Ann DiMaria for The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission & others. Anthony Mirenda, Vickie L. Henry, Lucy Fowler, John M. Granberry, Rachel N. Lessem, & Gabriel M. Helmer, Boston, for Robert F. Williams & others. Kenneth J. Parsigian, Boston, for Peter W. Bardaglio & others. David Cruz, of New York, John Taylor Williams, Carol V. Rose, Debra SquiresLee, Christopher Morrison, & MarniGoldstein Caputo, Boston, for William E. Adams & others. Martin J. Newhouse, Boston, & Katharine Bolland for Coalition gaie et lesbienne du Quebec & others. Joseph Ureneck, pro se. Teresa S. Collett, of Texas, & Luke Stanton, Waltham, for Free Market Foundation. Peter F. Zupcofska, L. Tracee Whitley, Heidi A. Nadel, & Corin R. Swift, Boston, for Boston Bar Association & another. Mary Jo Johnson, Jonathan A. Shapiro, & Amy L. Nash, Boston, for The Massachusetts Psychiatric Society & others.
Page 14
*312 Tony R. Maida, Nina Joan Kimball, & Justine H. Brousseau for Libby Adler & others. Daryl J. Lapp, Boston, Kevin D. Batt, & Katharine Silbaugh for Monroe Inker & another. David Zwiebel, Mordechai Biser, & Nathan J. Diament, of New York, & Abba Cohen, of the District of Columbia, for Agudath Israel of America & others. **948 Present: MARSHALL, C.J., GREANEY, IRELAND, SPINA, COWIN, SOSMAN, & CORDY, JJ. MARSHALL, C.J. Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society. For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial, and social benefits. In return it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations. The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. We conclude that it may not. The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens. In reaching our conclusion we have given full deference to the arguments made by the Commonwealth. But it has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to samesex couples. We are mindful that our decision marks
a change in the history of our marriage law. Many people hold deep-seated religious, moral, and ethical convictions that marriage should be limited to the union of one man and one woman, and that homosexual conduct is immoral. Many hold equally strong religious, moral, and ethical convictions that same-sex couples are entitled to be married, and that homosexual persons should be treated no differently than their heterosexual neighbors. Neither view answers the question before us. Our concern is with the Massachusetts Constitution as a charter of governance for every person properly within its reach. Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, , 123 S.Ct. 2472, 2480, 156 L.Ed.2d 508 (2003) (Lawrence ), quoting Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 850, 112 S.Ct. 2791, 120 L.Ed.2d 674 (1992). Whether the Commonwealth may use its formidable regulatory*313 authority to bar same-sex couples from civil marriage is a question not previously addressed by a Massachusetts appellate court.FN3 It is a question the United States Supreme Court left open as a matter of Federal law in Lawrence, supra at 2484, where it was not an issue. There, the Court affirmed that the core concept of common human dignity protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution precludes government intrusion into the deeply personal realms of consensual adult expressions of intimacy and one's choice of an intimate partner. The Court also reaffirmed the central role that decisions whether to marry or have children bear in shaping one's identity. Id. at 2481. The Massachusetts Constitution is, if anything, more protective of individual liberty and
Page 15
equality than the Federal Constitution; it **949 may demand broader protection for fundamental rights; and it is less tolerant of government intrusion into the protected spheres of private life. FN3. For American appellate courts that have recently addressed this issue, see Standhardt v. Superior Court, 77 P.3d 451 (Ariz.Ct.App.2003); Dean v. District of Columbia, 653 A.2d 307 (D.C.1995); Baehr v. Lewin, 74 Haw. 530, 852 P.2d 44 (1993); Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194, 242, 744 A.2d 864 (1999). Earlier cases include Adams v. Howerton, 486 F.Supp. 1119 (C.D.Cal.1980), aff'd, 673 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 458 U.S. 1111, 102 S.Ct. 3494, 73 L.Ed.2d 1373 (1982); Jones v. Hallahan, 501 S.W.2d 588 (Ky.1973); Baker v. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310, 191 N.W.2d 185 (1971), appeal dismissed, 409 U.S. 810, 93 S.Ct. 37, 34 L.Ed.2d 65 (1972); Singer v. Hara, 11 Wash.App. 247, 522 P.2d 1187 (1974). See also Halpern v. Toronto (City), 172 O.A.C. 276 (2003); EGALE Canada, Inc. v. Canada (Attorney Gen.), 13 B.C.L.R. (4th) 1 (2003). Barred access to the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage, a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community's most rewarding and cherished institutions. That exclusion is incompatible with the constitutional principles of respect for individual autonomy and equality under law. I The plaintiffs are fourteen individuals
from five Massachusetts counties. As of April 11, 2001, the date they filed their complaint, the plaintiffs Gloria Bailey, sixty years old, and Linda Davies, fiftyfive years old, had been in a committed relationship for thirty years; the plaintiffs Maureen Brodoff, forty-nine years old, and Ellen Wade, fifty-two years old, had been in a committed *314 relationship for twenty years and lived with their twelve year old daughter; the plaintiffs Hillary Goodridge, forty-four years old, and Julie Goodridge, forty-three years old, had been in a committed relationship for thirteen years and lived with their five year old daughter; the plaintiffs Gary Chalmers, thirty-five years old, and Richard Linnell, thirty-seven years old, had been in a committed relationship for thirteen years and lived with their eight year old daughter and Richard's mother; the plaintiffs Heidi Norton, thirty-six years old, and Gina Smith, thirty-six years old, had been in a committed relationship for eleven years and lived with their two sons, ages five years and one year; the plaintiffs Michael Horgan, forty-one years old, and Edward Balmelli, forty-one years old, had been in a committed relationship for seven years; and the plaintiffs David Wilson, fifty-seven years old, and Robert Compton, fifty-one years old, had been in a committed relationship for four years and had cared for David's mother in their home after a serious illness until she died. The plaintiffs include business executives, lawyers, an investment banker, educators, therapists, and a computer engineer. Many are active in church, community, and school groups. They have employed such legal means as are available to themfor example, joint adoption, powers of attorney, and joint ownership of real propertyto secure aspects of their
Page 16
relationships. Each plaintiff attests a desire to marry his or her partner in order to affirm publicly their commitment to each other and to secure the legal protections and benefits afforded to married couples and their children. The Department of Public Health (department) is charged by statute with safeguarding public health. See G.L. c. 17. Among its responsibilities, the department oversees the registry of vital records and statistics (registry), which enforce[s] all laws relative to the issuance of marriage licenses and the keeping of marriage records, see G.L. c. 17, 4, and which promulgates policies and procedures for the issuance of marriage licenses by city and town clerks and registers. See, e.g., G.L. c. 207, 20, 28A, and 37. The registry is headed by a registrar of vital records and statistics (registrar), appointed by the Commissioner of Public Health (commissioner) with the approval of the public health council and supervised by the commissioner. See G.L. c. 17, 4. *315 In March and April, 2001, each of the plaintiff couples attempted to obtain a marriage license from a city or town clerk's office. As required under G.L. c. 207, they completed notices of intention to marry on forms provided by the registry, **950 see G.L. c. 207, 20, and presented these forms to a Massachusetts town or city clerk, together with the required health forms and marriage license fees. See G.L. c. 207, 19. In each case, the clerk either refused to accept the notice of intention to marry or denied a marriage license to the couple on the ground that Massachusetts does not recognize same-sex marriage.FN4 ,FN5 Because obtaining a marriage license is a necessary prerequisite to civil marriage in Massachusetts, denying marriage
licenses to the plaintiffs was tantamount to denying them access to civil marriage itself, with its appurtenant social and legal protections, benefits, and obligations.FN6 FN4. General Laws c. 207, 37, provides: The commissioner of public health shall furnish to the clerk or registrar of every town a printed list of all legal impediments to marriage, and the clerk or registrar shall forthwith post and thereafter maintain it in a conspicuous place in his office. The record does not reveal whether any of the clerks' offices that considered the plaintiffs' applications for a marriage license had posted such a list of impediments, or whether such list included as an impediment that the applicants are of the same sex. FN5. The plaintiffs alleged that they met all of the facial qualifications to obtain marriage licenses pursuant to G.L. c. 207, and the department does not contest this assertion. FN6. The complaint alleged various circumstances in which the absence of the full legal protections of civil marriage has harmed them and their children. For example, Hillary and Julie Goodridge alleged that, when Julie gave birth to their daughter (whom Hillary subsequently coadopted) during a delivery that required the infant's transfer to neonatal intensive care, Hillary had difficulty gaining access to Julie and their newborn daughter at the hospital; Gary Chalmers and Richard Linnell alleged that Gary pays for a family health insurance policy at work which covers only
Page 17
him and their daughter because Massachusetts law does not consider Rich to be a dependent. This means that their household must purchase a separate individual policy of health insurance for Rich at considerable expense.... Gary has a pension plan at work, but under state law, because he is a municipal employee, that plan does not allow him the same range of options in providing for his beneficiary that a married spouse has and thus he cannot provide the same security to his family that a married person could if he should predecease Rich. On April 11, 2001, the plaintiffs filed suit in the Superior Court against the department and the commissioner seeking a judgment that the exclusion of the [p]laintiff couples and other *316 qualified same-sex couples from access to marriage licenses, and the legal and social status of civil marriage, as well as the protections, benefits and obligations of marriage, violates Massachusetts law. See G.L. c. 231A. The plaintiffs alleged violation of the laws of the Commonwealth, including but not limited to their rights under arts. 1, 6, 7, 10, 12, and 16, and Part II, c. 1, 1, art. 4, of the Massachusetts Constitution. FN7,FN8 The department, represented by the Attorney **951 General, admitted to a policy and practice of denying marriage licenses to same-sex *317 couples. It denied that its actions violated any law or that the plaintiffs were entitled to relief. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. FN7. Article 1, as amended by art. 106 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution,
provides: All people are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness. Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed or national origin. Article 6 provides: No man, nor corporation, or association of men, have any other title to obtain advantages, or particular and exclusive privileges, distinct from those of the community, than what arises from the consideration of services rendered to the public.... Article 7 provides: Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family or class of men: Therefore the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity and happiness require it. 8. Footnote 8 is on p. 951. Article 10 provides, in relevant part: Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty and property, according to standing laws....
Page 18
Article 12 provides, in relevant part: [N]o subject shall be ... deprived of his property, immunities, or privileges, put out of the protection of the law ... or deprived of his life, liberty, or estate, but by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land. Article 16, as amended by art. 77 of the Amendments, provides, in relevant part: The right of free speech shall not be abridged. Part II, c. 1, 1, art. 4, as amended by art. 112, provides, in pertinent part, that full power and authority are hereby given and granted to the said general court, from time to time, to make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable orders, laws, statutes, and ordinances, directions and instructions, either with penalties or without; so as the same be not repugnant or contrary to this constitution, as they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of this Commonwealth. FN8. The department claims that the plaintiffs have waived their art. 12 and art. 16 claims on appeal. Because our holding today does not turn on art. 12 or art. 16, we do not consider the department's waiver argument. A Superior Court judge ruled for the department. In a memorandum of decision and order dated May 7, 2002, he dismissed the plaintiffs' claim that the marriage statutes should be construed to permit marriage between persons of the same sex, holding that the plain wording of G.L. c. 207, as well as the wording of other
marriage statutes, precluded that interpretation. Turning to the constitutional claims, he held that the marriage exclusion does not offend the liberty, freedom, equality, or due process provisions of the Massachusetts Constitution, and that the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights does not guarantee the fundamental right to marry a person of the same sex. He concluded that prohibiting same-sex marriage rationally furthers the Legislature's legitimate interest in safeguarding the primary purpose of marriage, procreation. The Legislature may rationally limit marriage to oppositesex couples, he concluded, because those couples are theoretically ... capable of procreation, they do not rely on inherently more cumbersome noncoital means of reproduction, and they are more likely than same-sex couples to have children, or more children. After the complaint was dismissed and summary judgment entered for the defendants, the plaintiffs appealed. Both parties requested direct appellate review, which we granted. II Although the plaintiffs refer in passing to the marriage statutes, they focus, quite properly, on G.L. c. 207, the marriage licensing statute, which controls entry into civil marriage. As a preliminary matter, we summarize the provisions of that law. [1] General Laws c. 207 is both a gatekeeping and a public records statute. It sets minimum qualifications for obtaining a marriage license and directs city and town clerks, the registrar, and the department to keep and maintain certain vital records of civil marriages. The gatekeeping provisions of G.L. c. 207 are minimal. They forbid marriage of individuals within
Page 19
certain *318 degrees of consanguinity, 1 and 2, and polygamous marriages. See G.L. c. 207, 4. See also G.L. c. 207, 8 (marriages solemnized in violation of 1, 2, and 4, are void ab initio). They prohibit marriage if one of the parties has communicable**952 syphilis, see G.L. c. 207, 28A, and restrict the circumstances in which a person under eighteen years of age may marry. See G.L. c. 207, 7, 25, and 27. The statute requires that civil marriage be solemnized only by those so authorized. See G.L. c. 207, 3840. The record-keeping provisions of G.L. c. 207 are more extensive. Marriage applicants file standard information forms and a medical certificate in any Massachusetts city or town clerk's office and tender a filing fee. G.L. c. 207, 19 20, 28A. The clerk issues the marriage license, and when the marriage is solemnized, the individual authorized to solemnize the marriage adds additional information to the form and returns it (or a copy) to the clerk's office. G.L. c. 207, 28, 30, 38 40 (this completed form is commonly known as the marriage certificate). The clerk sends a copy of the information to the registrar, and that information becomes a public record. See G.L. c. 17, 4; G.L. c. 66, 10.FN9,FN10 FN9. The marital forms forwarded by the clerk or register must contain the date of record, date and place of marriage, name, residence and official station of the person by whom solemnized; for each of the parties to be married the name, date and place of birth, residence, age, number of the marriage, as first or second, and if previously married, whether widowed or divorced, and the birth-given names of their
parents. G.L. c. 46, 1. FN10. The record of a marriage made and kept as provided by law by the person by whom the marriage was solemnized, or by the clerk or registrar, or a copy thereof duly certified, shall be prima facie evidence of such marriage. G.L. c. 207, 45. A certificate of the [c]ommissioner's copy, signed by the [c]ommissioner or the [r]egistar, is admissible as evidence of the record. Secretary of the Commonwealth v. City Clerk of Lowell, 373 Mass. 178, 181182, 366 N.E.2d 717 (1977). [2] In short, for all the joy and solemnity that normally attend a marriage, G.L. c. 207, governing entrance to marriage, is a licensing law. The plaintiffs argue that because nothing in that licensing law specifically prohibits marriages between persons of the same sex, we may interpret the statute to permit qualified same sex couples to obtain marriage licenses, thereby avoiding the question whether the law is constitutional. See *319 School Comm. of Greenfield v. Greenfield Educ. Ass'n, 385 Mass. 70, 79, 431 N.E.2d 180 (1982), and cases cited. This claim lacks merit. [3][4][5] We interpret statutes to carry out the Legislature's intent, determined by the words of a statute interpreted according to the ordinary and approved usage of the language. Hanlon v. Rollins, 286 Mass. 444, 447, 190 N.E. 606 (1934). The everyday meaning of marriage is [t]he legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife, Black's Law Dictionary 986 (7th ed.1999), and the plaintiffs do not argue that the term marriage has ever had a different meaning under Massachusetts
Page 20
law. See, e.g., Milford v. Worcester, 7 Mass. 48, 52 (1810) (marriage is an engagement, by which a single man and a single woman, of sufficient discretion, take each other for husband and wife). This definition of marriage, as both the department and the Superior Court judge point out, derives from the common law. See Commonwealth v. Knowlton, 2 Mass. 530, 535 (1807) (Massachusetts common law derives from English common law except as otherwise altered by Massachusetts statutes and Constitution). See also Commonwealth v. Lane, 113 Mass. 458, 462463 (1873) (when the statutes are silent, questions of the validity of marriages are to be determined by the jus gentium, the common law of nations); C.P. Kindregan, Jr., & M.L. Inker, Family Law and Practice 1.2 (3d ed.2002). Far from being ambiguous, the undefined word marriage, as **953 used in G.L. c. 207, confirms the General Court's intent to hew to the term's common-law and quotidian meaning concerning the genders of the marriage partners. [6] The intended scope of G.L. c. 207 is also evident in its consanguinity provisions. See Chandler v. County Comm'rs of Nantucket County, 437 Mass. 430, 435, 772 N.E.2d 578 (2002) (statute's various provisions may offer insight into legislative intent). Sections 1 and 2 of G.L. c. 207 prohibit marriages between a man and certain female relatives and a woman and certain male relatives, but are silent as to the consanguinity of male-male or female-female marriage applicants. See G.L. c. 207, 1 2. The only reasonable explanation is that the Legislature did not intend that same-sex couples be licensed to marry. We conclude, as did the *320 judge, that G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry. FN11
FN11. We use the terms same sex and opposite sex when characterizing the couples in question, because these terms are more accurate in this context than the terms homosexual or heterosexual, although at times we use those terms when we consider them appropriate. Nothing in our marriage law precludes people who identify themselves (or who are identified by others) as gay, lesbian, or bisexual from marrying persons of the opposite sex. See Baehr v. Lewin, 74 Haw. 530, 543 n. 11, 547 n. 14, 852 P.2d 44 (1993). III A The larger question is whether, as the department claims, government action that bars same-sex couples from civil marriage constitutes a legitimate exercise of the State's authority to regulate conduct, or whether, as the plaintiffs claim, this categorical marriage exclusion violates the Massachusetts Constitution. We have recognized the long-standing statutory understanding, derived from the common law, that marriage means the lawful union of a woman and a man. But that history cannot and does not foreclose the constitutional question. The plaintiffs' claim that the marriage restriction violates the Massachusetts Constitution can be analyzed in two ways. Does it offend the Constitution's guarantees of equality before the law? Or do the liberty and due process provisions of the Massachusetts Constitution secure the plaintiffs' right to marry their chosen partner? In matters implicating marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children,
Page 21
the two constitutional concepts frequently overlap, as they do here. See, e.g., M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 120, 117 S.Ct. 555, 136 L.Ed.2d 473 (1996) (noting convergence of due process and equal protection principles in cases concerning parent-child relationships); Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal.2d 711, 728, 198 P.2d 17 (1948) (analyzing statutory ban on interracial marriage as equal protection violation concerning regulation of fundamental right). See also Lawrence, supra at 2482 (Equality of treatment and the due process right to demand respect for conduct protected by the substantive guarantee of liberty are linked in important respects, and a decision on the latter point advances both interests); Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 74 S.Ct. 693, 98 L.Ed. 884 (1954) (racial *321 segregation in District of Columbia public schools violates the due process clause of Fifth Amendment to United States Constitution), decided the same day as Brown v. Board of Educ. of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954) (holding that segregation of public schools in States violates equal protection clause of Fourteenth Amendment). Much of what we say concerning one standard applies to the other. **954 [7] We begin by considering the nature of civil marriage itself. Simply put, the government creates civil marriage. In Massachusetts, civil marriage is, and since pre-Colonial days has been, precisely what its name implies: a wholly secular institution. See Commonwealth v. Munson, 127 Mass. 459, 460466 (1879) (noting that [i]n Massachusetts, from very early times, the requisites of a valid marriage have been regulated by statutes of the Colony, Province, and Commonwealth, and surveying marriage statutes from 1639
through 1834). No religious ceremony has ever been required to validate a Massachusetts marriage. Id. [8] In a real sense, there are three partners to every civil marriage: two willing spouses and an approving State. See DeMatteo v. DeMatteo, 436 Mass. 18, 31, 762 N.E.2d 797 (2002) (Marriage is not a mere contract between two parties but a legal status from which certain rights and obligations arise); Smith v. Smith, 171 Mass. 404, 409, 50 N.E. 933 (1898) (on marriage, the parties assume[ ] new relations to each other and to the State). See also French v. McAnarney, 290 Mass. 544, 546, 195 N.E. 714 (1935). While only the parties can mutually assent to marriage, the terms of the marriagewho may marry and what obligations, benefits, and liabilities attach to civil marriageare set by the Commonwealth. Conversely, while only the parties can agree to end the marriage (absent the death of one of them or a marriage void ab initio), the Commonwealth defines the exit terms. See G.L. c. 208. [9][10] Civil marriage is created and regulated through exercise of the police power. See Commonwealth v. Stowell, 389 Mass. 171, 175, 449 N.E.2d 357 (1983) (regulation of marriage is properly within the scope of the police power). Police power (now more commonly termed the State's regulatory authority) is an oldfashioned term for the Commonwealth's lawmaking authority, as bounded by the liberty and equality guarantees of the MassachusettsConstitution *322 and its express delegation of power from the people to their government. In broad terms, it is the Legislature's power to enact rules to regulate conduct, to the extent that such laws are necessary to secure the health,
Page 22
safety, good order, comfort, or general welfare of the community (citations omitted). Opinion of the Justices, 341 Mass. 760, 785, 168 N.E.2d 858 (1960). FN12 See Commonwealth v. Alger, 61 Mass. 53, 7 Cush. 53, 85 (1851). FN12. The term public welfare has never been and cannot be precisely defined. Sometimes it has been said to include public convenience, comfort, peace and order, prosperity, and similar concepts, but not to include mere expediency. Opinion of the Justices, 333 Mass. 773, 778, 128 N.E.2d 557 (1955). Without question, civil marriage enhances the welfare of the community. It is a social institution of the highest importance. French v. McAnarney, supra. Civil marriage anchors an ordered society by encouraging stable relationships over transient ones. It is central to the way the Commonwealth identifies individuals, provides for the orderly distribution of property, ensures that children and adults are cared for and supported whenever possible from private rather than public funds, and tracks important epidemiological and demographic data. Marriage also bestows enormous private and social advantages on those who choose to marry. Civil marriage is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family. It is **955 an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965). Because it fulfils yearnings for
security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life's momentous acts of selfdefinition. Tangible as well as intangible benefits flow from marriage. The marriage license grants valuable property rights to those who meet the entry requirements, and who agree to what might otherwise be a burdensome degree of government regulation of their activities.FN13 See *323Leduc v. Commonwealth, 421 Mass. 433, 435, 657 N.E.2d 755 (1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 827, 117 S.Ct. 91, 136 L.Ed.2d 47 (1996) (The historical aim of licensure generally is preservation of public health, safety, and welfare by extending the public trust only to those with proven qualifications). The Legislature has conferred on each party [in a civil marriage] substantial rights concerning the assets of the other which unmarried cohabitants do not have. Wilcox v. Trautz, 427 Mass. 326, 334, 693 N.E.2d 141 (1998). See Collins v. Guggenheim, 417 Mass. 615, 618, 631 N.E.2d 1016 (1994) (rejecting claim for equitable distribution of property where plaintiff cohabited with but did not marry defendant); Feliciano v. Rosemar Silver Co., 401 Mass. 141, 142, 514 N.E.2d 1095 (1987) (government interest in promoting marriage would be subverted by recognition of a right to recover for loss of consortium by a person who has not accepted the correlative responsibilities of marriage); Davis v. Misiano, 373 Mass. 261, 263, 366 N.E.2d 752 (1977) (unmarried partners not entitled to rights of separate support or alimony). See generally Attorney Gen. v. Desilets, 418 Mass. 316, 327328 & nn. 10, 11, 636 N.E.2d 233
Page 23
(1994). FN13. For example, married persons face substantial restrictions, simply because they are married, on their ability freely to dispose of their assets. See, e.g., G.L. c. 208, 34 (providing for payment of alimony and the equitable division of property on divorce); G.L. c. 191, 15, and G.L. c. 189 (rights of elective share and dower). [11] The benefits accessible only by way of a marriage license are enormous, touching nearly every aspect of life and death. The department states that hundreds of statutes are related to marriage and to marital benefits. With no attempt to be comprehensive, we note that some of the statutory benefits conferred by the Legislature on those who enter into civil marriage include, as to property: joint Massachusetts income tax filing (G.L. c. 62C, 6); tenancy by the entirety (a form of ownership that provides certain protections against creditors and allows for the automatic descent of property to the surviving spouse without probate) (G.L. c. 184, 7); extension of the benefit of the homestead protection (securing up to $300,000 in equity from creditors) to one's spouse and children (G.L. c. 188, 1); automatic rights to inherit the property of a deceased spouse who does not leave a will (G.L. c. 190, 1); the rights of elective share and of dower (which allow surviving spouses certain property rights where the decedent spouse has not made adequate provision for the survivor in a will) (*324 G.L. c. 191, 15, and G.L. c. 189); entitlement to wages owed to a deceased employee (G.L. c. 149, 178A [general] and G.L. c. 149, 178C [public employees] ); eligibility to continue certain
businesses of a deceased spouse (e.g., G.L. c. 112, 53 [dentist] ); the right to share the medical policy of one's spouse (e.g., **956G.L. c. 175, 108, Second [a ] [3] [defining insured's dependent to include one's spouse] ), (see Connors v. Boston, 430 Mass. 31, 43, 714 N.E.2d 335 (1999) [domestic partners of city employees not included within term dependent as used in G.L. c. 32B, 2] ); thirty-nine week continuation of health coverage for the spouse of a person who is laid off or dies (e.g., G.L. c. 175, 110G); preferential options under the Commonwealth's pension system (see G.L. c. 32, 12[2] [Joint and Last Survivor Allowance] ); preferential benefits in the Commonwealth's medical program, MassHealth (e.g., 130 Code Mass. Regs. 515.012[A], prohibiting placing lien on long-term care patient's former home if spouse still lives there); access to veterans' spousal benefits and preferences (e.g., G.L. c. 115, 1 [defining dependents] and G.L. c. 31, 26 [State employment] and 28 [municipal employees] ); financial protections for spouses of certain Commonwealth employees (fire fighters, police officers, and prosecutors, among others) killed in the performance of duty (e.g., G.L. c. 32, 100 103); the equitable division of marital property on divorce (G.L. c. 208, 34); temporary and permanent alimony rights (G.L. c. 208, 17 and 34); the right to separate support on separation of the parties that does not result in divorce (G.L. c. 209, 32); and the right to bring claims for wrongful death and loss of consortium, and for funeral and burial expenses and punitive damages resulting from tort actions (G.L. c. 229, 1 and 2; G.L. c. 228, 1. See Feliciano v. Rosemar Silver Co., supra ). [12][13] Exclusive marital benefits that
Page 24
are not directly tied to property rights include the presumptions of legitimacy and parentage of children born to a married couple (G.L. c. 209C, 6, and G.L. c. 46, 4B); and evidentiary rights, such as the prohibition against spouses testifying against one another about their private conversations, applicable in both civil and criminal cases (G.L. c. 233, 20). Other statutory benefits of a personal nature available only to married individuals include qualification for *325 bereavement or medical leave to care for individuals related by blood or marriage (G.L. c. 149, 52D); an automatic family member preference to make medical decisions for an incompetent or disabled spouse who does not have a contrary health care proxy, see Shine v. Vega, 429 Mass. 456, 466, 709 N.E.2d 58 (1999); the application of predictable rules of child custody, visitation, support, and removal outof-State when married parents divorce (e.g., G.L. c. 208, 19 [temporary custody], 20 [temporary support], 28 [custody and support on judgment of divorce], 30 [removal from Commonwealth], and 31 [shared custody plan] ); priority rights to administer the estate of a deceased spouse who dies without a will, and the requirement that a surviving spouse must consent to the appointment of any other person as administrator (G.L. c. 38, 13 [disposition of body], and G.L. c. 113, 8 [anatomical gifts] ); and the right to interment in the lot or tomb owned by one's deceased spouse ( G.L. c. 114, 2933). [14] Where a married couple has children, their children are also directly or indirectly, but no less auspiciously, the recipients of the special legal and economic protections obtained by civil marriage. Notwithstanding the
Commonwealth's strong public policy to abolish legal distinctions between marital and nonmarital children in providing for the support and care of minors, see Department of Revenue v. Mason M., 439 Mass. 665, 790 N.E.2d 671 (2003); Woodward v. Commissioner of Social Sec., 435 Mass. 536, 546, 760 N.E.2d 257 (2002), the fact remains that marital children reap a measure of family stability **957 and economic security based on their parents' legally privileged status that is largely inaccessible, or not as readily accessible, to nonmarital children. Some of these benefits are social, such as the enhanced approval that still attends the status of being a marital child. Others are material, such as the greater ease of access to family-based State and Federal benefits that attend the presumptions of one's parentage. [15] It is undoubtedly for these concrete reasons, as well as for its intimately personal significance, that civil marriage has long been termed a civil right. See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967) (Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival), quoting Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 86 L.Ed. 1655 (1942); *326Milford v. Worcester, 7 Mass. 48, 56 (1810) (referring to civil rights incident to marriages). See also Baehr v. Lewin, 74 Haw. 530, 561, 852 P.2d 44 (1993) (identifying marriage as civil right[ ]); Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194, 242, 744 A.2d 864 (1999) (Johnson, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (same). The United States Supreme Court has described the right to marry as of fundamental importance for all individuals and as part of the fundamental right of privacy
Page 25
implicit in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384, 98 S.Ct. 673, 54 L.Ed.2d 618 (1978). See Loving v. Virginia, supra (The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men).FN14 FN14. Civil marriage enjoys a dual and in some sense paradoxical status as both a State-conferred benefit (with its attendant obligations) and a multi-faceted personal interest of fundamental importance. Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 383, 98 S.Ct. 673, 54 L.Ed.2d 618 (1978). As a practical matter, the State could not abolish civil marriage without chaotic consequences. The right to marry, id. at 387, 98 S.Ct. 673, is different from rights deemed fundamental for equal protection and due process purposes because the State could, in theory, abolish all civil marriage while it cannot, for example, abolish all private property rights. [16][17] Without the right to marryor more properly, the right to choose to marryone is excluded from the full range of human experience and denied full protection of the laws for one's avowed commitment to an intimate and lasting human relationship. Baker v. State, supra at 229, 744 A.2d 864. Because civil marriage is central to the lives of individuals and the welfare of the community, our laws assiduously protect the individual's right to marry against undue government incursion. Laws may not interfere directly and substantially with the right to marry. Zablocki v. Redhail, supra at 387, 98 S.Ct. 673. See
Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal.2d 711, 714 (1948) (There can be no prohibition of marriage except for an important social objective and reasonable means).FN15 FN15. The department argues that this case concerns the rights of couples (same-sex and oppositesex), not the rights of individuals. This is incorrect. The rights implicated in this case are at the core of individual privacy and autonomy. See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967) (Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State); Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal.2d 711, 716, 198 P.2d 17 (1948) (The right to marry is the right of individuals, not of racial groups). See also A.Z. v. B.Z., 431 Mass. 150, 162, 725 N.E.2d 1051 (2000), quoting Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499, 97 S.Ct. 1932, 52 L.Ed.2d 531 (1977) (noting freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life). While two individuals who wish to marry may be equally aggrieved by State action denying them that opportunity, they do not share the liberty and equality interests at stake. **958 [18][19] Unquestionably, the regulatory power of the Commonwealth *327 over civil marriage is broad, as is the Commonwealth's discretion to award public benefits. See Commonwealth v. Stowell, 389 Mass. 171, 175, 449 N.E.2d 357 (1983) (marriage); Moe v. Secretary of Admin. & Fin., 382 Mass. 629, 652, 417
Page 26
N.E.2d 387 (1981) (Medicaid benefits). Individuals who have the choice to marry each other and nevertheless choose not to may properly be denied the legal benefits of marriage. See Wilcox v. Trautz, 427 Mass. 326, 334, 693 N.E.2d 141 (1998); Collins v. Guggenheim, 417 Mass. 615, 618, 631 N.E.2d 1016 (1994); Feliciano v. Rosemar Silver Co., 401 Mass. 141, 142, 514 N.E.2d 1095 (1987). But that same logic cannot hold for a qualified individual who would marry if she or he only could. B For decades, indeed centuries, in much of this country (including Massachusetts) no lawful marriage was possible between white and black Americans. That long history availed not when the Supreme Court of California held in 1948 that a legislative prohibition against interracial marriage violated the due process and equality guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment, Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal.2d 711, 728, 198 P.2d 17 (1948), or when, nineteen years later, the United States Supreme Court also held that a statutory bar to interracial marriage violated the Fourteenth Amendment, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967).FN16 As both Perez and Loving make clear, the right to marry means *328 little if it does not include the right to marry the person of one's choice, subject to appropriate government restrictions in the interests of public health, safety, and welfare. See Perez v. Sharp, supra at 717, 198 P.2d 17 (the essence of the right to marry is freedom to join in marriage with the person of one's choice). See also Loving v. Virginia, supra at 12, 87 S.Ct. 1817. In this case, as in Perez and Loving, a statute deprives individuals of access to an institution of fundamental legal, personal, and social
significancethe institution of marriagebecause of a single trait: skin color in Perez and Loving, sexual orientation here. As it did in Perez and Loving, history must yield to a more fully developed understanding of the invidious quality of the discrimination.FN17 FN16. The department argues that the Loving decision did not profoundly alter the by-then common conception of marriage because it was decided at a time when antimiscegenation statutes were in full-scale retreat. But the relationship the department draws between popular consensus and the constitutionality of a statute oppressive to a minority group ignores the successful constitutional challenges to an antimiscegenation statute, initiated some twenty years earlier. When the Supreme Court of California decided Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal.2d 711, 728 (1948), a precursor to Loving, racial inequality was rampant and normative, segregation in public and private institutions was commonplace, the civil rights movement had not yet been launched, and the separate but equal doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 16 S.Ct. 1138, 41 L.Ed. 256 (1896), was still good law. The lack of popular consensus favoring integration (including interracial marriage) did not deter the Supreme Court of California from holding that that State's antimiscegenation statute violated the plaintiffs' constitutional rights. Neither the Perez court nor the Loving Court was content to permit an unconstitutional situation
Page 27
to fester because the remedy might not reflect a broad social consensus. FN17. Recently, the United States Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the Constitution prohibits a State from wielding its formidable power to regulate conduct in a manner that demeans basic human dignity, even though that statutory discrimination may enjoy broad public support. The Court struck down a statute criminalizing sodomy. See Lawrence, supra at 2478 (The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice). **959 [20] The Massachusetts Constitution protects matters of personal liberty against government incursion as zealously, and often more so, than does the Federal Constitution, even where both Constitutions employ essentially the same language. See Planned Parenthood League of Mass., Inc. v. Attorney Gen., 424 Mass. 586, 590, 677 N.E.2d 101 (1997); Corning Glass Works v. Ann & Hope, Inc. of Danvers, 363 Mass. 409, 416, 294 N.E.2d 354 (1973). That the Massachusetts Constitution is in some instances more protective of individual liberty interests than is the Federal Constitution is not surprising. Fundamental to the vigor of our Federal system of government is that state courts are absolutely free to interpret state constitutional provisions to accord greater protection to individual rights than do similar provisions of the United States Constitution. Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1, 8, 115 S.Ct. 1185, 131 L.Ed.2d 34 (1995).FN18 FN18. We have recognized that our Constitution may more extensively protect individual rights than the
Federal Constitution in widely different contexts. See, e.g., Horsemen's Benevolent & Protective Ass'n v. State Racing Comm'n, 403 Mass. 692, 532 N.E.2d 644 (1989) (freedom from intrusive drug testing in highly regulated industry); Cepulonis v. Secretary of the Commonwealth, 389 Mass. 930, 452 N.E.2d 1137 (1983) (inmates' right to register to vote); Batchelder v. Allied Stores Int'l, Inc., 388 Mass. 83, 445 N.E.2d 590 (1983) (freedom to solicit signatures for ballot access in public election); Moe v. Secretary of Admin. & Fin., 382 Mass. 629, 417 N.E.2d 387 (1981) (right to State Medicaid payment for medically necessary abortions); CoffeeRich, Inc. v. Commissioner of Pub. Health, 348 Mass. 414, 204 N.E.2d 281 (1965) (freedom to pursue one's lawful business). [21][22][23] The individual liberty and equality safeguards of the Massachusetts *329 Constitution protect both freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into protected spheres of life and freedom to partake in benefits created by the State for the common good. See Bachrach v. Secretary of the Commonwealth, 382 Mass. 268, 273, 415 N.E.2d 832 (1981); Dalli v. Board of Educ., 358 Mass. 753, 759, 267 N.E.2d 219 (1971). Both freedoms are involved here. Whether and whom to marry, how to express sexual intimacy, and whether and how to establish a familythese are among the most basic of every individual's liberty and due process rights. See, e.g., Lawrence, supra at 2481; Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851, 112 S.Ct. 2791, 120 L.Ed.2d 674 (1992); Zablocki v.
Page 28
Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384, 98 S.Ct. 673, 54 L.Ed.2d 618 (1978); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 152153, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453, 92 S.Ct. 1029, 31 L.Ed.2d 349 (1972); Loving v. Virginia, supra. And central to personal freedom and security is the assurance that the laws will apply equally to persons in similar situations. Absolute equality before the law is a fundamental principle of our own Constitution. Opinion of the Justices, 211 Mass. 618, 619, 98 N.E. 337 (1912). The liberty interest in choosing whether and whom to marry would be hollow if the Commonwealth could, without sufficient justification, foreclose an individual from freely choosing the person with whom to share an exclusive commitment in the unique institution of civil marriage. [24][25][26] The Massachusetts Constitution requires, at a minimum, that the exercise of the State's regulatory authority not be arbitrary or capricious. **960Commonwealth v. Henry's Drywall Co., 366 Mass. 539, 542, 320 N.E.2d 911 (1974).FN19 Under both the equality and liberty guarantees, regulatory authority must, at very least, serve a *330 legitimate purpose in a rational way; a statute must bear a reasonable relation to a permissible legislative objective. Rushworth v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 413 Mass. 265, 270, 596 N.E.2d 340 (1992). See, e.g., Massachusetts Fed'n of Teachers v. Board of Educ., 436 Mass. 763, 778, 767 N.E.2d 549 (2002) (equal protection); CoffeeRich, Inc. v. Commissioner of Pub. Health, 348 Mass. 414, 422, 204 N.E.2d 281 (1965) (due process). Any law failing to satisfy the basic standards of rationality is void. FN19. The Massachusetts
Constitution empowers the General Court to enact only those orders, laws, statutes, and ordinances wholesome and reasonable, that are not repugnant or contrary to the Constitution, and that, in the Legislature's judgment, advance the good and welfare of the Commonwealth, its government, and all of its subjects. Part II, c. 1, 1, art. 4. See Opinion of the Justices, 360 Mass. 877, 883, 271 N.E.2d 335 (1971), quoting Jones v. Robbins, 74 Mass. 329, 8 Gray 329, 343 (1857) (powers vested in government are set down in Massachusetts Constitution in a few plain, clear and intelligible propositions, for the better guidance and control, both of legislators and magistrates). [27][28][29][30] The plaintiffs challenge the marriage statute on both equal protection and due process grounds. With respect to each such claim, we must first determine the appropriate standard of review. Where a statute implicates a fundamental right or uses a suspect classification, we employ strict judicial scrutiny. Lowell v. Kowalski, 380 Mass. 663, 666, 405 N.E.2d 135 (1980). For all other statutes, we employ the rational basis' test. English v. New England Med. Ctr., 405 Mass. 423, 428, 541 N.E.2d 329 (1989). For due process claims, rational basis analysis requires that statutes bear[ ] a real and substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or some other phase of the general welfare. CoffeeRich, Inc. v. Commissioner of Pub. Health, supra, quoting Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Director of the Div. on the Necessaries of Life, 307 Mass. 408, 418, 30 N.E.2d 269 (1940). For equal protection challenges, the
Page 29
rational basis test requires that an impartial lawmaker could logically believe that the classification would serve a legitimate public purpose that transcends the harm to the members of the disadvantaged class. English v. New England Med. Ctr., supra at 429, 541 N.E.2d 329, quoting Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 452, 105 S.Ct. 3249, 87 L.Ed.2d 313 (1985) (Stevens, J., concurring).FN20 FN20. Not every asserted rational relationship is a conceivable one, and rationality review is not toothless. Murphy v. Commissioner of the Dep't of Indus. Accs., 415 Mass. 218, 233, 612 N.E.2d 1149 (1993), citing Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U.S. 495, 510, 96 S.Ct. 2755, 49 L.Ed.2d 651 (1976). Statutes have failed rational basis review even in circumstances where no fundamental right or suspect classification is implicated. See, e.g., Murphy v. Commissioner of the Dep't of Indus. Accs., 415 Mass. 218, 226227, 612 N.E.2d 1149 (1993) (fee imposed on retention of counsel in administrative proceedings); Secretary of the Commonwealth v. City Clerk of Lowell, 373 Mass. 178, 186, 366 N.E.2d 717 (1977) (selection of surname for nonmarital child); Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Commissioner of Ins., 358 Mass. 272, 280281, 263 N.E.2d 698 (1970) (automobile insurance ratesetting); CoffeeRich, Inc. v. Commissioner of Pub. Health, 348 Mass. 414, 422, 204 N.E.2d 281 (1965) (sale of wholesome product); Mansfield Beauty Academy, Inc. v. Board of
Registration of Hairdressers, 326 Mass. 624, 627, 96 N.E.2d 145 (1951) (right to charge for materials furnished to models by trade school); Opinion of the Justices, 322 Mass. 755, 760761, 79 N.E.2d 883 (1948) (proposed statute concerning regulating cemeteries); Boston Elevated Ry. v. Commonwealth, 310 Mass. 528, 556557, 39 N.E.2d 87 (1942) (legislation impairing contract right); Durgin v. Minot, 203 Mass. 26, 28, 89 N.E. 144 (1909) (statute authorizing certain board of health regulations). **961 [31] The department argues that no fundamental right or suspect *331 class is at issue here,FN21 and rational basis is the appropriate standard of review. For the reasons we explain below, we conclude that the marriage ban does not meet the rational basis test for either due process or equal protection. Because the statute does not survive rational basis review, we do not consider the plaintiffs' arguments that this case merits strict judicial scrutiny. FN21. Article 1 of the Massachusetts Constitution specifically prohibits sex-based discrimination. See post at 344345, 798 N.E.2d at 970971 (Greaney, J., concurring). We have not previously considered whether sexual orientation is a suspect classification. Our resolution of this case does not require that inquiry here. The department posits three legislative rationales for prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying: (1) providing a favorable setting for procreation; (2) ensuring the
Page 30
optimal setting for child rearing, which the department defines as a two-parent family with one parent of each sex; and (3) preserving scarce State and private financial resources. We consider each in turn. [32][33] The judge in the Superior Court endorsed the first rationale, holding that the state's interest in regulating marriage is based on the traditional concept that marriage's primary purpose is procreation. This is incorrect. Our laws of civil marriage do not privilege procreative heterosexual intercourse between married people above every other form of adult intimacy and every other means of creating a family. General Laws c. 207 contains no requirement that the applicants for a marriage license attest to their ability or intention to conceive children by coitus. Fertility is not a condition of marriage, nor is it grounds for divorce. People who have never consummated their marriage, and never plan to, may be and stay married. See Franklin v. Franklin, 154 Mass. 515, 516, 28 N.E. 681 (1891) (The consummation of a marriage by *332 coition is not necessary to its validity). FN22 People who cannot stir from their deathbed may marry. See G.L. c. 207, 28A. While it is certainly true that many, perhaps most, married couples have children together (assisted or unassisted), it is the exclusive and permanent commitment of the marriage partners to one another, not the begetting of children, that is the sine qua non of civil marriage. FN23 FN22. Our marriage law does recognize that the inability to participate in intimate relations may have a bearing on one of the central expectations of marriage. Since the
earliest days of the Commonwealth, the divorce statutes have permitted (but not required) a spouse to choose to divorce his or her impotent mate. See St. 1785, c. 69, 3. While infertility is not a ground to void or terminate a marriage, impotency (the inability to engage in sexual intercourse) is, at the election of the disaffected spouse. See G.L. c. 207, 14 (annulment); G.L. c. 208, 1 (divorce). Cf. Martin v. Otis, 233 Mass. 491, 495, 124 N.E. 294 (1919) (impotency does not render a marriage void, but only voidable at the suit of the party conceiving himself or herself to be wronged); Smith v. Smith, 171 Mass. 404, 408, 50 N.E. 933 (1898) (marriage nullified because husband's incurable syphilis leaves him no foundation on which the marriage relation could properly rest). See also G.L. c. 207, 28A. However, in Hanson v. Hanson, 287 Mass. 154, 191 N.E. 673 (1934), a decree of annulment for nonconsummation was reversed where the wife knew before the marriage that her husband had syphilis and voluntarily chose to marry him. We held that, given the circumstances of the wife's prior knowledge of the full extent of the disease and her consent to be married, the husband's condition did not go to the essence of the marriage. Id. at 159, 191 N.E. 673. FN23. It is hardly surprising that civil marriage developed historically as a means to regulate heterosexual conduct and to promote child rearing, because until very recently unassisted
Page 31
heterosexual relations were the only means short of adoption by which children could come into the world, and the absence of widely available and effective contraceptives made the link between heterosexual sex and procreation very strong indeed. Punitive notions of illegitimacy, see Powers v. Wilkinson, 399 Mass. 650, 661, 506 N.E.2d 842 (1987), and of homosexual identity, see Lawrence, supra at 24782479, further cemented the common and legal understanding of marriage as an unquestionably heterosexual institution. But it is circular reasoning, not analysis, to maintain that marriage must remain a heterosexual institution because that is what it historically has been. As one dissent acknowledges, in the modern age, heterosexual intercourse, procreation, and child care are not necessarily conjoined. Post at 382, 798 N.E.2d at 995996 (Cordy, J., dissenting). **962 Moreover, the Commonwealth affirmatively facilitates bringing children into a family regardless of whether the intended parent is married or unmarried, whether the child is adopted or born into a family, whether assistive technology was used to conceive the child, and whether the parent or her partner is *333 heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual.FN24 If procreation were a necessary component of civil marriage, our statutes would draw a tighter circle around the permissible bounds of nonmarital child bearing and the creation of families by noncoital means. The attempt to isolate procreation as the source of a fundamental right to marry, 440 Mass. at 370 (Cordy, J., dissenting), overlooks the integrated way in which
courts have examined the complex and overlapping realms of personal autonomy, marriage, family life, and child rearing. Our jurisprudence recognizes that, in these nuanced and fundamentally private areas of life, such a narrow focus is inappropriate. FN24. Adoption and certain insurance coverage for assisted reproductive technology are available to married couples, samesex couples, and single individuals alike. See G.L. c. 210, 1; Adoption of Tammy, 416 Mass. 205, 619 N.E.2d 315 (1993) (adoption); G.L. c. 175, 47H; G.L. c. 176A, 8K; G.L. c. 176B, 4J; and G.L. c. 176G, 4 (insurance coverage). See also Woodward v. Commissioner of Social Sec., 435 Mass. 536, 546, 760 N.E.2d 257 (2002) (posthumous reproduction); Culliton v. Beth Israel Deaconess Med. Ctr., 435 Mass. 285, 293, 756 N.E.2d 1133 (2001) (gestational surrogacy). The marriage is procreation argument singles out the one unbridgeable difference between same-sex and opposite-sex couples, and transforms that difference into the essence of legal marriage. Like Amendment 2 to the Constitution of Colorado, which effectively denied homosexual persons equality under the law and full access to the political process, the marriage restriction impermissibly identifies persons by a single trait and then denies them protection across the board. Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 633, 116 S.Ct. 1620, 134 L.Ed.2d 855 (1996). In so doing, the State's action confers an official stamp of approval on the destructive stereotype that same-sex relationships are inherently unstable and
Page 32
inferior to opposite-sex relationships and are not worthy of respect.FN25 FN25. Because our laws expressly or implicitly sanction so many kinds of opposite-sex marriages that do not or will never result in unassisted reproduction, it is erroneous to claim, as the dissent does, that the theoretical[ ] procreative capacity of opposite-sex couples, post at 391, 798 N.E.2d at 1002 (Cordy, J., dissenting), sufficiently justifies excluding from civil marriage same-sex couples who actually have children. [34][35] The department's first stated rationale, equating marriage with unassisted heterosexual procreation, shades imperceptibly into its second: that confining marriage to opposite-sex couples ensures that children are raised in the optimal setting. Protecting*334 the welfare of children is a paramount State policy. Restricting marriage to oppositesex couples, however, cannot plausibly further this policy. The demographic changes of the past **963 century make it difficult to speak of an average American family. The composition of families varies greatly from household to household. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 63, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000). Massachusetts has responded supportively to the changing realities of the American family, id. at 64, 120 S.Ct. 2054, and has moved vigorously to strengthen the modern family in its many variations. See, e.g., G.L. c. 209C (paternity statute); G.L. c. 119, 39D (grandparent visitation statute); Blixt v. Blixt, 437 Mass. 649, 774 N.E.2d 1052 (2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1189, 123 S.Ct. 1259, 154 L.Ed.2d 1022 (2003) (same); E.N.O. v. L.M.M., 429 Mass. 824,
711 N.E.2d 886, cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1005, 120 S.Ct. 500, 145 L.Ed.2d 386 (1999) (de facto parent); Youmans v. Ramos, 429 Mass. 774, 782, 711 N.E.2d 165 (1999) (same); and Adoption of Tammy, 416 Mass. 205, 619 N.E.2d 315 (1993) (coparent adoption). Moreover, we have repudiated the common-law power of the State to provide varying levels of protection to children based on the circumstances of birth. See G.L. c. 209C (paternity statute); Powers v. Wilkinson, 399 Mass. 650, 661, 506 N.E.2d 842 (1987) (Ours is an era in which logic and compassion have impelled the law toward unburdening children from the stigma and the disadvantages heretofore attendant upon the status of illegitimacy). The best interests of the child standard does not turn on a parent's sexual orientation or marital status. See e.g., Doe v. Doe, 16 Mass.App.Ct. 499, 503, 452 N.E.2d 293 (1983) (parent's sexual orientation insufficient ground to deny custody of child in divorce action). See also E.N.O. v. L.M.M., supra at 829830, 711 N.E.2d 886 (best interests of child determined by considering child's relationship with biological and de facto same-sex parents); Silvia v. Silvia, 9 Mass.App.Ct. 339, 341 & n. 3, 400 N.E.2d 1330 (1980) (collecting support and custody statutes containing no gender distinction). The department has offered no evidence that forbidding marriage to people of the same sex will increase the number of couples choosing to enter into opposite-sex marriages in order to have and raise children. There is thus no rational relationship between the marriage statute and the Commonwealth's proffered goal of protecting the optimal child rearing unit. Moreover, the department readily concedes that people in same-sex couples may be
Page 33
excellent parents. These couples (including*335 four of the plaintiff couples) have children for the reasons others doto love them, to care for them, to nurture them. But the task of child rearing for same-sex couples is made infinitely harder by their status as outliers to the marriage laws. While establishing the parentage of children as soon as possible is crucial to the safety and welfare of children, see Culliton v. Beth Israel Deaconess Med. Ctr., 435 Mass. 285, 292, 756 N.E.2d 1133 (2001), same-sex couples must undergo the sometimes lengthy and intrusive process of second-parent adoption to establish their joint parentage. While the enhanced income provided by marital benefits is an important source of security and stability for married couples and their children, those benefits are denied to families headed by same-sex couples. See, e.g., note 6, supra. While the laws of divorce provide clear and reasonably predictable guidelines for child support, child custody, and property division on dissolution of a marriage, same-sex couples who dissolve their relationships find themselves and their children in the highly unpredictable terrain of equity jurisdiction. See E.N.O. v. L.M.M., supra. Given the wide range of public benefits reserved only for married couples, we do not credit the department's contention that the absence of access to civil marriage **964 amounts to little more than an inconvenience to same-sex couples and their children. Excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage will not make children of opposite-sex marriages more secure, but it does prevent children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure in which children will be reared, educated, and socialized. 440 Mass. at 381 (Cordy, J., dissenting).
FN26 FN26. The claim that the constitutional rights to bear and raise a child are not implicated or infringed by the marriage ban, post at 371, 798 N.E.2d at 988 (Cordy, J., dissenting), does not stand up to scrutiny. The absolute foreclosure of the marriage option for the class of parents and would-be parents at issue here imposes a heavy burden on their decision to have and raise children that is not suffered by any other class of parent. No one disputes that the plaintiff couples are families, that many are parents, and that the children they are raising, like all children, need and should have the fullest opportunity to grow up in a secure, protected family unit. Similarly, no one disputes that, under the rubric of marriage, the State provides a *336 cornucopia of substantial benefits to married parents and their children. The preferential treatment of civil marriage reflects the Legislature's conclusion that marriage is the foremost setting for the education and socialization of children precisely because it encourages parents to remain committed to each other and to their children as they grow. 440 Mass. at 383, 798 N.E.2d at 996 (Cordy, J., dissenting). In this case, we are confronted with an entire, sizeable class of parents raising children who have absolutely no access to civil marriage and its protections because they are forbidden from procuring a marriage license. It cannot be rational under our laws, and indeed it is not permitted, to penalize children by depriving them of State benefits because the State disapproves of their parents' sexual orientation.
Page 34
[36] The third rationale advanced by the department is that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the Legislature's interest in conserving scarce State and private financial resources. The marriage restriction is rational, it argues, because the General Court logically could assume that same-sex couples are more financially independent than married couples and thus less needy of public marital benefits, such as tax advantages, or private marital benefits, such as employerfinanced health plans that include spouses in their coverage. An absolute statutory ban on same-sex marriage bears no rational relationship to the goal of economy. First, the department's conclusory generalizationthat same-sex couples are less financially dependent on each other than opposite-sex couplesignores that many same-sex couples, such as many of the plaintiffs in this case, have children and other dependents (here, aged parents) in their care.FN27 The department does not contend, nor could it, that these dependents are less needy or deserving than the dependents of married couples. Second, Massachusetts marriage laws do not condition receipt of public and private financial benefits to married individuals on a demonstration of financial dependence on each other; the benefits are available to married couples regardless of whether *337 they mingle their finances or actually depend on each other for support. FN27. It is also true that civil marriage creates legal dependency between spouses, which is simply not available to unmarried couples. See Part III A, supra. The department suggests additional rationales for prohibiting same-sex couples
from marrying, which are developed by **965 some amici. It argues that broadening civil marriage to include samesex couples will trivialize or destroy the institution of marriage as it has historically been fashioned. Certainly our decision today marks a significant change in the definition of marriage as it has been inherited from the common law, and understood by many societies for centuries. But it does not disturb the fundamental value of marriage in our society. Here, the plaintiffs seek only to be married, not to undermine the institution of civil marriage. They do not want marriage abolished. They do not attack the binary nature of marriage, the consanguinity provisions, or any of the other gate-keeping provisions of the marriage licensing law. Recognizing the right of an individual to marry a person of the same sex will not diminish the validity or dignity of opposite-sex marriage, any more than recognizing the right of an individual to marry a person of a different race devalues the marriage of a person who marries someone of her own race.FN28 If anything, extending civil marriage to same-sex couples reinforces the importance of marriage to individuals and communities. That same-sex couples are willing to embrace marriage's solemn obligations of exclusivity, mutual support, and commitment to one another is a testament to the enduring place of marriage in our laws and in the human spirit.FN29 FN28. Justice Cordy suggests that we have transmuted the right to marry into a right to change the institution of marriage itself, post at 365, 798 N.E.2d at 984 (Cordy, J., dissenting), because marriage is intimately tied to the reproductive
Page 35
systems of the marriage partners and to the optimal mother and father setting for child rearing. Id. That analysis hews perilously close to the argument, long repudiated by the Legislature and the courts, that men and women are so innately and fundamentally different that their respective proper spheres can be rigidly and universally delineated. An abundance of legislative enactments and decisions of this court negate any such stereotypical premises. FN29. We are concerned only with the withholding of the benefits, protections, and obligations of civil marriage from a certain class of persons for invalid reasons. Our decision in no way limits the rights of individuals to refuse to marry persons of the same sex for religious or any other reasons. It in no way limits the personal freedom to disapprove of, or to encourage others to disapprove of, same-sex marriage. Our concern, rather, is whether historical, cultural, religious, or other reasons permit the State to impose limits on personal beliefs concerning whom a person should marry. [37] It has been argued that, due to the State's strong interest in *338 the institution of marriage as a stabilizing social structure, only the Legislature can control and define its boundaries. Accordingly, our elected representatives legitimately may choose to exclude samesex couples from civil marriage in order to assure all citizens of the Commonwealth that (1) the benefits of our marriage laws are available explicitly to create and
support a family setting that is, in the Legislature's view, optimal for child rearing, and (2) the State does not endorse gay and lesbian parenthood as the equivalent of being raised by one's married biological parents.FN30 These **966 arguments miss the point. The Massachusetts Constitution requires that legislation meet certain criteria and not extend beyond certain limits. It is the function of courts to determine whether these criteria are met and whether these limits are exceeded. In most instances, these limits are defined by whether a rational basis exists to conclude that legislation will bring about a rational result. The Legislature in the first instance, and the courts in the last instance, must ascertain whether such a rational basis exists. To label the court's role as usurping that of the Legislature, see, e.g., post at 394395 (Cordy, J., dissenting), is to misunderstand the nature *339 and purpose of judicial review. We owe great deference to the Legislature to decide social and policy issues, but it is the traditional and settled role of courts to decide constitutional issues.FN31 FN30. Justice Cordy's dissenting opinion, post at 386388 and nn. 2428, 798 N.E.2d at 998999 (Cordy, J., dissenting), makes much of the current battle of the experts concerning the possible long-term effects on children of being raised in households headed by same-sex parents. We presume that the Legislature is aware of these studies, see Mutual Loan Co. v. Martell, 200 Mass. 482, 487, 86 N.E. 916 (1909), aff'd, 222 U.S. 225, 32 S.Ct. 74, 56 L.Ed. 175 (1911), and has drawn the conclusion that a child's best
Page 36
interest is not harmed by being raised and nurtured by same-sex parents. See G.L. c. 210, 7. See also Adoption of Tammy, 416 Mass. 205, 619 N.E.2d 315 (1993); 110 Code Mass. Regs. 1.09(3) (2000) ( The Department [of Social Services] shall not deny to any person the opportunity to become an adoptive or foster parent, on the basis of the ... sexual orientation ... of the person, or of the child, involved). Either the Legislature's openness to same-sex parenting is rational in light of its paramount interests in promoting children's well-being, or irrational in light of its so-called conclusion that a household headed by opposite-sex married parents is the optimal setting for raising children. See post at 392, 798 N.E.2d at 10021003 (Cordy, J., dissenting). We give full credit to the Legislature for enacting a statutory scheme of child-related laws that is coherent, consistent, and harmonious. See New England Div. of the Am. Cancer Soc'y v. Commissioner of Admin., 437 Mass. 172, 180, 769 N.E.2d 1248 (2002). FN31. If total deference to the Legislature were the case, the judiciary would be stripped of its constitutional authority to decide challenges to statutes pertaining to marriage, child rearing, and family relationships, and, conceivably, unconstitutional laws that provided for the forced sterilization of habitual criminals; prohibited miscegenation; required court approval for the marriage of persons with child support
obligations; compelled a pregnant unmarried minor to obtain the consent of both parents before undergoing an abortion; and made sodomy a criminal offense, to name just a few, would stand. Indeed, every State court that has recently considered the issue we decide today has exercised its duty in the same way, by carefully scrutinizing the statutory ban on same-sex marriages in light of relevant State constitutional provisions. See Brause v. Bureau of Vital Statistics, No. 3AN956562CI, 1998 WL 88743 (Alaska Super.Ct., Feb. 27, 1998) (concluding marriage statute violated right to privacy provision in Alaska Constitution) (superseded by constitutional amendment, art. I, 25 of Constitution of Alaska); Baehr v. Lewin, 74 Haw. 530, 571580, 852 P.2d 44 (1993) (concluding marriage statute implicated Hawaii Constitution's equal protection clause; remanding case to lower court for further proceedings); Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194, 197198, 744 A.2d 864 (1999) (concluding marriage statute violated Vermont Constitution's common benefits clause). But see Standhardt v. Superior Court, 77 P.3d 451 (Ariz.Ct.App.2003) (marriage statute does not violate liberty interests under either Federal or Arizona Constitution). See also Halpern v. Toronto (City), 172 O.A.C. 276 (2003) (concluding marriage statute violated equal protection provisions of Canada's
Page 37
Charter of Rights and Freedoms); Eagle Canada, Inc. v. Canada (Attorney Gen.), 13 B.C.L.R. (4th) 1 (2003) (same). The history of constitutional law is the story of the extension of constitutional rights and protections to people once ignored or excluded. United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 557, 116 S.Ct. 2264, 135 L.Ed.2d 735 (1996) (construing equal protection clause of Fourteenth Amendment to prohibit categorical exclusion of women from public military institute). This statement is as true in the area of civil marriage as in any other area of civil rights. See, e.g., Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967); Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal.2d 711, 198 P.2d 17 (1948). As a public institution and a right of fundamental**967 importance, civil marriage is an evolving paradigm. The common law was exceptionally harsh toward women who became wives: a woman's legal identity all but evaporated into that of her husband. See generally C.P. Kindregan, Jr., & M.L. Inker, Family Law and Practice 1.9 and 1.10 (3d ed.2002). Thus, one *340 early Nineteenth Century jurist could observe matter of factly that, prior to the abolition of slavery in Massachusetts, the condition of a slave resembled the connection of a wife with her husband, and of infant children with their father. He is obliged to maintain them, and they cannot be separated from him. Winchendon v. Hatfield, 4 Mass. 123, 129 (1808). But since at least the middle of the Nineteenth Century, both the courts and the Legislature have acted to ameliorate the harshness of the commonlaw regime. In Bradford v. Worcester, 184 Mass. 557, 562, 69 N.E. 310 (1904), we
refused to apply the common-law rule that the wife's legal residence was that of her husband to defeat her claim to a municipal settlement of paupers. In Lewis v. Lewis, 370 Mass. 619, 629, 351 N.E.2d 526 (1976), we abrogated the common-law doctrine immunizing a husband against certain suits because the common-law rule was predicated on antediluvian assumptions concerning the role and status of women in marriage and in society. Id. at 621, 351 N.E.2d 526. Alarms about the imminent erosion of the natural order of marriage were sounded over the demise of antimiscegenation laws, the expansion of the rights of married women, and the introduction of no-fault divorce.FN32 Marriage has survived all of these transformations, and we have no doubt that marriage will continue to be a vibrant and revered institution. FN32. One prominent historian of marriage notes, for example, that in the Nineteenth Century, the Reverend Theodore Woolsey led the charge against expanding the grounds for divorce, arguing that the the only divinely approved (and therefore truly legitimate) reason for divorce was adultery and that only the innocent party to a marriage terminated by reason of adultery be permitted to remarry. Cott, Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation 106 (2000). See id. at 4445, for a general discussion of resistance to the demise of antimiscegenation laws. [38] We also reject the argument suggested by the department, and elaborated by some amici, that expanding the institution of civil marriage in
Page 38
Massachusetts to include same-sex couples will lead to interstate conflict. We would not presume to dictate how another State should respond to today's decision. But neither should considerations of comity prevent us from according Massachusetts residents the full measure of protection available under the Massachusetts Constitution. The genius of our Federal system is that each State's Constitution has vitality specific to *341 its own traditions, and that, subject to the minimum requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment, each State is free to address difficult issues of individual liberty in the manner its own Constitution demands. Several amici suggest that prohibiting marriage by same-sex couples reflects community consensus that homosexual conduct is immoral. Yet Massachusetts has a strong affirmative policy of preventing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. See G.L. c. 151B (employment, housing, credit, services); G.L. c. 265, 39 (hate crimes); G.L. c. 272, 98 (public accommodation); G.L. c. 76, 5 (public education). See also, e.g., Commonwealth v. Balthazar, 366 Mass. 298, 318 N.E.2d 478 (1974) (decriminalization of private consensual adult conduct); Doe v. Doe, 16 Mass.App.Ct. 499, 503, 452 N.E.2d 293 (1983) (custody to homosexual parent not per se prohibited). **968 The department has had more than ample opportunity to articulate a constitutionally adequate justification for limiting civil marriage to opposite-sex unions. It has failed to do so. The department has offered purported justifications for the civil marriage restriction that are starkly at odds with the comprehensive network of vigorous,
gender-neutral laws promoting stable families and the best interests of children. It has failed to identify any relevant characteristic that would justify shutting the door to civil marriage to a person who wishes to marry someone of the same sex. The marriage ban works a deep and scarring hardship on a very real segment of the community for no rational reason. The absence of any reasonable relationship between, on the one hand, an absolute disqualification of same-sex couples who wish to enter into civil marriage and, on the other, protection of public health, safety, or general welfare, suggests that the marriage restriction is rooted in persistent prejudices against persons who are (or who are believed to be) homosexual.FN33 The Constitution cannot control such prejudices but neither can it *342 tolerate them. Private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect. Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429, 433, 104 S.Ct. 1879, 80 L.Ed.2d 421 (1984) (construing Fourteenth Amendment). Limiting the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage to opposite-sex couples violates the basic premises of individual liberty and equality under law protected by the Massachusetts Constitution. FN33. It is not dispositive, for purposes of our constitutional analysis, whether the Legislature, at the time it incorporated the common-law definition of marriage into the first marriage laws nearly three centuries ago, did so with the intent of discriminating against or harming persons who wish to marry another of the same sex. We are not required to impute an invidious intent to the Legislature in
Page 39
determining that a statute of long standing has no applicability to present circumstances or violates the rights of individuals under the Massachusetts Constitution. That the Legislature may have intended what at the time of enactment was a perfectly reasonable form of discriminationor a result not recognized as a form of discriminationwas not enough to salvage from later constitutional challenge laws burdening nonmarital children or denying women's equal partnership in marriage. See, e.g., Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762, 97 S.Ct. 1459, 52 L.Ed.2d 31 (1977) (nonmarital children); Angelini v. OMD Corp., 410 Mass. 653, 662, 663, 575 N.E.2d 41 (1991) (The traditional common law rules which discriminated against children born out of wedlock have been discarded and [w]e have recognized that placing additional burdens on [nonmarital] children is unfair because they are not responsible for their [status]); Silvia v. Silvia, 9 Mass.App.Ct. 339, 340341, 400 N.E.2d 1330 (1980) (there now exists a comprehensive statutory and common law pattern which places marital and parental obligations on both the husband and wife). We are concerned with the operation of challenged laws on the parties before us, and we do not inhibit our inquiry on the ground that a statute's original enactors had a benign or at the time constitutionally unassailable purpose. See Colo v. Treasurer & Receiver Gen., 378 Mass. 550, 557, 392 N.E.2d 1195 (1979), quoting
Walz v. Tax Comm'n of the City of N.Y., 397 U.S. 664, 678, 90 S.Ct. 1409, 25 L.Ed.2d 697 (1970) (the mere fact that a certain practice has gone unchallenged for a long period of time cannot alone immunize it from constitutional invalidity, even when that span of time covers our entire national existence and indeed predates it ); Merit Oil Co. v. Director of Div. of Necessaries of Life, 319 Mass. 301, 305, 65 N.E.2d 529 (1946) (constitutional contours of State's regulatory authority coextensive with the changing needs of society). IV [39] We consider next the plaintiffs' request for relief. We preserve as much of the statute as may be preserved in the face of the successful constitutional challenge. **969 See Mayor of Boston v. Treasurer & Receiver Gen., 384 Mass. 718, 725, 429 N.E.2d 691 (1981); Dalli v. Board of Educ., 358 Mass. 753, 759, 267 N.E.2d 219 (1971). See also G.L. c. 4, 6, Eleventh. [40][41] Here, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief. Eliminating civil marriage would be wholly inconsistent with the Legislature's deep commitment to fostering stable families and would dismantle a vital organizing*343 principle of our society.FN34 We face a problem similar to one that recently confronted the Court of Appeal for Ontario, the highest court of that Canadian province, when it considered the constitutionality of the same-sex marriage ban under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter), part of Canada's Federal Constitution. See Halpern v. Toronto (City), 172 O.A.C. 276 (2003) Canada, like the United States,
Page 40
adopted the common law of England. that civil marriage is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others. Id. at par. (36), quoting Hyde v. Hyde, [18611873] All E.R. 175 (1866). In holding that the limitation of civil marriage to opposite-sex couples violated the Charter, the Court of Appeal refined the common-law meaning of marriage. We concur with this remedy, which is entirely consonant with established principles of jurisprudence empowering a court to refine a commonlaw principle in light of evolving constitutional standards. See Powers v. Wilkinson, 399 Mass. 650, 661662, 506 N.E.2d 842 (1987) (reforming commonlaw rule of construction of issue); Lewis v. Lewis, 370 Mass. 619, 629, 351 N.E.2d 526 (1976) (abolishing common-law rule of certain interspousal immunity). FN34. Similarly, no one argues that the restrictions on incestuous or polygamous marriages are so dependent on the marriage restriction that they too should fall if the marriage restriction falls. Nothing in our opinion today should be construed as relaxing or abrogating the consanguinity or polygamy prohibitions of our marriage laws. See G.L. c. 207, 1, 2, and 4. Rather, the statutory provisions concerning consanguinity or polygamous marriages shall be construed in a gender neutral manner. See Califano v. Westcott, 443 U.S. 76, 9293, 99 S.Ct. 2655, 61 L.Ed.2d 382 (1979) (construing word father in unconstitutional, underinclusive provision to mean parent); Browne's Case, 322 Mass. 429, 430, 77 N.E.2d 649
(1948) (construing masculine pronoun his to include feminine pronoun her). See also G.L. c. 4, 6, Fourth (words of one gender may be construed to include the other gender and the neuter unless such construction would be inconsistent with the manifest intent of the law-making body or repugnant to the context of the same statute ). We construe civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others. This reformulation redresses the plaintiffs' constitutional injury and furthers the aim of marriage to promote stable, exclusive relationships. It advances the two legitimate State interests the department has identified: providing a stable setting for child rearing and conserving State resources. It leaves intact the *344 Legislature's broad discretion to regulate marriage. See Commonwealth v. Stowell, 389 Mass. 171, 175, 449 N.E.2d 357 (1983). [42] In their complaint the plaintiffs request only a declaration that their exclusion and the exclusion of other qualified same-sex couples from access to civil marriage violates Massachusetts law. We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution. We vacate the summary judgment for the department. We remand this case to the **970 Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light
Page 41
of this opinion. See, e.g., Michaud v. Sheriff of Essex County, 390 Mass. 523, 535536, 458 N.E.2d 702 (1983). So ordered. GREANEY, J. (concurring). I agree with the result reached by the court, the remedy ordered, and much of the reasoning in the court's opinion. In my view, however, the case is more directly resolved using traditional equal protection analysis. (a) Article 1 of the Declaration of Rights, as amended by art. 106 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution, provides: All people are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness. Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed or national origin. This provision, even prior to its amendment, guaranteed to all people in the Commonwealthequallythe enjoyment of rights that are deemed important or fundamental. The withholding of relief from the plaintiffs, who wish to marry, and are *345 otherwise eligible to marry, on the ground that the couples are of the same gender, constitutes a categorical restriction of a fundamental right. The restriction creates a straightforward case of discrimination that disqualifies an entire group of our citizens and their families from participation in an institution of paramount legal and social importance.
This is impermissible under art. 1. Analysis begins with the indisputable premise that the deprivation suffered by the plaintiffs is no mere legal inconvenience. The right to marry is not a privilege conferred by the State, but a fundamental right that is protected against unwarranted State interference. See Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384, 98 S.Ct. 673, 54 L.Ed.2d 618 (1978) (the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967) (freedom to marry is one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men under due process clause of Fourteenth Amendment); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 86 L.Ed. 1655 (1942) (marriage is one of basic civil rights of man). See also Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 9596, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987) (prisoners' right to marry is constitutionally protected). This right is essentially vitiated if one is denied the right to marry a person of one's choice. See Zablocki v. Redhail, supra at 384, 98 S.Ct. 673 (all recent decisions of United States Supreme Court place the decision to marry as among the personal decisions protected by the right of privacy).FN1 FN1. It makes no difference that the referenced decisions consider the right to marry in the context of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution rather than in the context of our Constitution. As explained by the court, ante at 328 n. 18, 798 N.E.2d at 959, a fundamental right under the Federal Constitution enjoys at least a comparable measure of protection under our State
Page 42
Constitution. See Moe v. Secretary of Admin. & Fin., 382 Mass. 629, 651, 417 N.E.2d 387 (1981). **971 Because our marriage statutes intend, and state, the ordinary understanding that marriage under our law consists only of a union between a man and a woman, they create a statutory classification based on the sex of the two people who wish to marry. See Baehr v. Lewin, 74 Haw. 530, 564, 852 P.2d 44 (1993) (plurality opinion) (Hawaii marriage statutes created sex-based classification); Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194, 253, 744 A.2d 864 (1999) (Johnson, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (same). That the classification is *346 sex based is self-evident. The marriage statutes prohibit some applicants, such as the plaintiffs, from obtaining a marriage license, and that prohibition is based solely on the applicants' gender. As a factual matter, an individual's choice of marital partner is constrained because of his or her own sex. Stated in particular terms, Hillary Goodridge cannot marry Julie Goodridge because she (Hillary) is a woman. Likewise, Gary Chalmers cannot marry Richard Linnell because he (Gary) is a man. Only their gender prevents Hillary and Gary from marrying their chosen partners under the present law.FN2 FN2. In her separate opinion in Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194, 253, 744 A.2d 864 (1999) (Johnson, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), Justice Johnson described the equal protection defect in Vermont's marriage statutes in a slightly different, but no less persuasive, fashion: A woman is denied the right to marry another woman because her
would-be partner is a woman, not because one or both are lesbians. Similarly, a man is denied the right to marry another man because his would-be partner is a man, not because one or both are gay. Thus, an individual's right to marry a person of the same sex is prohibited solely on the basis of sex, not on the basis of sexual orientation. Indeed, sexual orientation does not appear as a qualification for marriage under the marriage statutes. The State makes no inquiry into the sexual practices or identities of a couple seeking a license. A classification may be gender based whether or not the challenged government action apportions benefits or burdens uniformly along gender lines. This is so because constitutional protections extend to individuals and not to categories of people. Thus, when an individual desires to marry, but cannot marry his or her chosen partner because of the traditional oppositesex restriction, a violation of art. 1 has occurred. See Commonwealth v. Chou, 433 Mass. 229, 237238, 741 N.E.2d 17 (2001) (assuming statute enforceable only across gender lines may offend Massachusetts equal rights amendment). I find it disingenuous, at best, to suggest that such an individual's right to marry has not been burdened at all, because he or she remains free to chose another partner, who is of the opposite sex. The equal protection infirmity at work here is strikingly similar to (although, perhaps, more subtle than) the invidious discrimination perpetuated by Virginia's antimiscegenation laws *347 and unveiled in the decision of Loving v. Virginia,
Page 43
supra. In its landmark decision striking down Virginia's ban on marriages between Caucasians and members of any other race on both equal protection and substantive due process grounds, the United States Supreme Court soundly rejected the proposition that the equal application of the ban (i.e., that it applied equally to whites and blacks) made unnecessary the strict scrutiny analysis traditionally required of statutes drawing classifications according to race, see id. at 89, 87 S.Ct. 1817, and concluded that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause. Id. at 12, 87 S.Ct. 1817. That our marriage laws, unlike antimiscegenation laws, were not enacted purposely to discriminate in no way **972 neutralizes their present discriminatory character. With these two propositions established (the infringement on a fundamental right and a sex-based classification), the enforcement of the marriage statutes as they are currently understood is forbidden by our Constitution unless the State can present a compelling purpose furthered by the statutes that can be accomplished in no other reasonable manner.FN3 See Blixt v. Blixt, 437 Mass. 649, 655656, 774 N.E.2d 1052 (2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1189, 123 S.Ct. 1259, 154 L.Ed.2d 1022 (2003); Lowell v. Kowalski, 380 Mass. 663, 667669, 405 N.E.2d 135 (1980). This the State has not done. The justifications put forth by the State to sustain the statute's exclusion of the plaintiffs are insufficient for the reasons explained by the court, to which I add the following observations. FN3. Some might say that the use of the so-called strict scrutiny formula is too facile in the sense
that, once a court focuses on the formula as a dispositional tool, the result is automatically preordainedthe statute will fail because the State cannot possibly sustain its heavy burden to overcome the presumption of arbitrary and invidious discrimination. This is not so. See, e.g., Blixt v. Blixt, 437 Mass. 649, 656657, 774 N.E.2d 1052 (2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1189, 123 S.Ct. 1259, 154 L.Ed.2d 1022 (2003) (concluding G.L. c. 119, 39D, grandparent visitation statute, furthered compelling State interest in mitigating potential harm to children in nonintact families). The rights of couples to have children, to adopt, and to be foster parents, regardless of sexual orientation and marital status, are firmly established. See E.N.O. v. L.M.M., 429 Mass. 824, 829, 711 N.E.2d 886, cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1005, 120 S.Ct. 500, 145 L.Ed.2d 386 (1999); Adoption of Tammy, 416 Mass. 205, 210211, 619 N.E.2d 315 (1993). As recognized in the court's opinion, and demonstrated by the record in this case, however, *348 the State's refusal to accord legal recognition to unions of same-sex couples has had the effect of creating a system in which children of same-sex couples are unable to partake of legal protections and social benefits taken for granted by children in families whose parents are of the opposite sex. The continued maintenance of this caste-like system is irreconcilable with, indeed, totally repugnant to, the State's strong interest in the welfare of all children and its primary focus, in the context of family law where children are concerned, on the best interests of the child. The issue at stake is not one, as might
Page 44
ordinarily be the case, that can be unilaterally and totally deferred to the wisdom of the Legislature. While the State retains wide latitude to decide the manner in which it will allocate benefits, it may not use criteria which discriminatorily burden the exercise of a fundamental right. Moe v. Secretary of Admin. & Fin., 382 Mass. 629, 652, 417 N.E.2d 387 (1981). Nor can the State's wish to conserve resources be accomplished by invidious distinctions between classes of citizens. See Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216217, 227, 102 S.Ct. 2382, 72 L.Ed.2d 786 (1982).FN4 FN4. The argument, made by some in the case, that legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts will be used by persons in other States as a tool to obtain recognition of a marriage in their State that is otherwise unlawful, is precluded by the provisions of G.L. c. 207, 11, 12, and 13. A comment is in order with respect to the insistence of some that marriage is, as a matter of definition, the legal union of a man and a woman. To define the institution of marriage by the characteristics of those to whom it always has been accessible, in order to justify the exclusion of those to whom it never has been accessible, is conclusory and bypasses the core **973 question we are asked to decide.FN5 This case calls for a higher level of legal analysis. Precisely, the case requires that we confront ingrained assumptions with respect to historically accepted roles of men and women within the institution of marriage and requires that we reexamine these assumptions in light of the *349 unequivocal language of art. 1, in order to ensure that the governmental conduct
challenged here conforms to the supreme charter of our Commonwealth. A written constitution is the fundamental law for the government of a sovereign State. It is the final statement of the rights, privileges and obligations of the citizens and the ultimate grant of the powers and the conclusive definition of the limitations of the departments of State and of public officers.... To its provisions the conduct of all governmental affairs must conform. From its terms there is no appeal. Loring v. Young, 239 Mass. 349, 376377, 132 N.E. 65 (1921). I do not doubt the sincerity of deeply held moral or religious beliefs that make inconceivable to some the notion that any change in the common-law definition of what constitutes a legal civil marriage is now, or ever would be, warranted. But, as matter of constitutional law, neither the mantra of tradition, nor individual conviction, can justify the perpetuation of a hierarchy in which couples of the same sex and their families are deemed less worthy of social and legal recognition than couples of the opposite sex and their families. See Lawrence v. Texas, 539U.S. 558, , 123 S.Ct. 2472, 2486, 156 L.Ed.2d 508 (2003) (O'Connor, J., concurring) (moral disapproval, with no other valid State interest, cannot justify law that discriminates against groups of persons); Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 850, 112 S.Ct. 2791, 120 L.Ed.2d 674 (1992) (Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code). FN5. Because marriage is, by all accounts, the cornerstone of our social structure, as well as the defining relationship in our personal lives, confining eligibility in the institution, and all of its
Page 45
accompanying benefits and responsibilities, to opposite-sex couples is basely unfair. To justify the restriction in our marriage laws by accusing the plaintiffs of attempting to change the institution of marriage itself terminates the debate at the outset without any accompanying reasoned analysis. (b) I am hopeful that our decision will be accepted by those thoughtful citizens who believe that same-sex unions should not be approved by the State. I am not referring here to acceptance in the sense of grudging acknowledgment of the court's authority to adjudicate the matter. My hope is more liberating. The plaintiffs are members of our community, our neighbors, our coworkers, our friends. As pointed out by the court, their professions include investment advisor, computer engineer, teacher, therapist, and lawyer. The plaintiffs volunteer in our schools, worship beside us in our religious houses, and have children who play with our children, to mention just a few ordinary daily contacts. We share a common humanity and participate together in the social contract that is the foundation of our Commonwealth. Simple principles of decency dictate that we *350 extend to the plaintiffs, and to their new status, full acceptance, tolerance, and respect. We should do so because it is the right thing to do. The union of two people contemplated by G.L. c. 207 is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions. **974
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965). Because of the terms of art. 1, the plaintiffs will no longer be excluded from that association.FN6 FN6. Justice Cordy's separate opinion points out, correctly, that, when art. 1 was revised by the people in 1976, it was not then intended to be relied on to approve same-sex marriage. Post at 377379, 798 N.E.2d at 992994 (Cordy, J., dissenting). (Justice Spina adverts to the same proposition in his separate opinion, post at 355, 798 N.E.2d at 977 [Spina, J., dissenting] ). Decisions construing the provision cited in Justice Cordy's opinion are interesting, but obviously inapposite because they have not dealt in any significant way with the issue before us. Nonetheless, the separate opinion concludes, from what was intended in 1976, and from various cases discussing art. 1, that the revised provision cannot be used to justify the result I reach. In so reasoning, the separate opinion places itself squarely on the side of the original intent school of constitutional interpretation. As a general principle, I do not accept the philosophy of the school. The Massachusetts Constitution was never meant to create dogma that adopts inflexible views of one time to deny lawful rights to those who live in another. The provisions of our Constitution are, and must be, adaptable to changing circumstances and new
Page 46
societal phenomena, and, unless and until the people speak again on a specific subject, conformable in their concepts of liberty and equality to what is fair, right, and just. I am cognizant of the voters' intent in passing the amendment to art. 1 in 1976. Were the revision alone the basis for change, I would be reluctant to construe it favorably to the plaintiffs, in view of the amendment's recent passage and the voters' intent. The court's opinion, however, rests in part on well-established principles of equal protection that are independent of the amendment. It is on these principles that I base my opinion. SPINA, J. (dissenting, with whom Sosman and Cordy, JJ., join). What is at stake in this case is not the unequal treatment of individuals or whether individual rights have been impermissibly burdened, but the power of the Legislature to effectuate social change without interference from the courts, pursuant to *351 art. 30 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.FN1 The power to regulate marriage lies with the Legislature, not with the judiciary. See Commonwealth v. Stowell, 389 Mass. 171, 175, 449 N.E.2d 357 (1983). Today, the court has transformed its role as protector of individual rights into the role of creator of rights, and I respectfully dissent. FN1. Article 30 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights provides that the judicial [department] shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers ... to the end it may be a
government of laws and not of men. 1. Equal protection. Although the court did not address the plaintiffs' gender discrimination claim, G.L. c. 207 does not unconstitutionally discriminate on the basis of gender.FN2 A claim of gender discrimination will lie where it is shown that differential treatment disadvantages one sex over the other. See Attorney Gen. v. Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Ass'n, 378 Mass. 342, 349352, 393 N.E.2d 284 (1979). See also United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 116 S.Ct. 2264, 135 L.Ed.2d 735 (1996). General Laws c. 207 enumerates certain qualifications for obtaining a marriage license. It creates no distinction between the sexes, but applies to men and women in precisely the same way. It does not create any disadvantage identified with gender, as both men and women are similarly limited to marrying a person of the opposite sex. See Commonwealth v. King, 374 Mass. 5, 1522, 372 N.E.2d 196 (1977) (law prohibiting prostitution not discriminatory **975 based on gender because of equal application to men and women). FN2. Article 1 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, as amended by art. 106 of the Amendments, the Equal Rights Amendment, states: Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed or national origin. Similarly, the marriage statutes do not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. As the court correctly recognizes, constitutional protections are extended to individuals, not couples. Ante at 326 n. 15, 798 N.E.2d at 957. The marriage statutes do not disqualify
Page 47
individuals on the basis of sexual orientation from entering into marriage. All individuals, with certain exceptions not relevant here, are free to marry. Whether an individual chooses not to marry because of sexual orientation or any other reason should be of no concern to the court. The court concludes, however, that G.L. c. 207 unconstitutionally discriminates against the individual plaintiffs because it *352 denies them the right to marry the person of one's choice where that person is of the same sex. Ante at 328, 798 N.E.2d at 958. To reach this result the court relies on Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967), and transforms choice into the essential element of the institution of marriage. The Loving case did not use the word choice in this manner, and it did not point to the result that the court reaches today. In Loving, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a statute that prohibited Caucasians from marrying non-Caucasians. It concluded that the statute was intended to preserve white supremacy and invidiously discriminated against nonCaucasians because of their race. See id. at 1112, 87 S.Ct. 1817. The choice to which the Supreme Court referred was the choice to marry, and it concluded that with respect to the institution of marriage, the State had no compelling interest in limiting the choice to marry along racial lines. Id. The Supreme Court did not imply the existence of a right to marry a person of the same sex. To the same effect is Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal.2d 711, 198 P.2d 17 (1948), on which the court also relies. Unlike the Loving and Sharp cases, the Massachusetts Legislature has erected no barrier to marriage that intentionally
discriminates against anyone. Within the institution of marriage,FN3 anyone is free to marry, with certain exceptions that are not challenged. In the absence of any discriminatory purpose, the State's marriage statutes do not violate principles of equal protection. See Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 240, 96 S.Ct. 2040, 48 L.Ed.2d 597 (1976) (invidious quality of a law claimed to be ... discriminatory must ultimately be traced to a ... discriminatory purpose); Dickerson v. Attorney Gen., 396 Mass. 740, 743, 488 N.E.2d 757 (1986) (for purpose of equal protection analysis, standard of review under State and Federal Constitutions is identical). See also Attorney Gen. v. Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Ass'n, supra. This court should not have invoked even the most deferential standard of review within equal protection analysis because no individual was denied access to the institution of marriage. FN3. Marriage is the civil union between a single man and a single woman. See Milford v. Worcester, 7 Mass. 48, 52 (1810). 2. Due process. The marriage statutes do not impermissibly burden a right protected by our constitutional guarantee of due *353 process implicit in art. 10 of our Declaration of Rights. There is no restriction on the right of any plaintiff to enter into marriage. Each is free to marry a willing person of the opposite sex. Cf. Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 98 S.Ct. 673, 54 L.Ed.2d 618 (1978) (fundamental **976 right to marry impermissibly burdened by statute requiring court approval when subject to child support order). Substantive due process protects individual rights against unwarranted
Page 48
government intrusion. See Aime v. Commonwealth, 414 Mass. 667, 673, 611 N.E.2d 204 (1993). The court states, as we have said on many occasions, that the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights may protect a right in ways that exceed the protection afforded by the Federal Constitution. Ante at 328, 798 N.E.2d at 958. See Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1, 8, 115 S.Ct. 1185, 131 L.Ed.2d 34 (1995) (State courts afforded broader protection of rights than granted by United States Constitution). However, today the court does not fashion a remedy that affords greater protection of a right. Instead, using the rubric of due process, it has redefined marriage. Although art. 10 may afford greater protection of rights than the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, our treatment of due process challenges adheres to the same standards followed in Federal due process analysis. See Commonwealth v. Ellis, 429 Mass. 362, 371, 708 N.E.2d 644 (1999). When analyzing a claim that the State has impermissibly burdened an individual's fundamental or other right or liberty interest, [w]e begin by sketching the contours of the right asserted. We then inquire whether the challenged restriction burdens that right. Moe v. Secretary of Admin. & Fin., 382 Mass. 629, 646, 417 N.E.2d 387 (1981). Where a right deemed fundamental is implicated, the challenged restriction will be upheld only if it is narrowly tailored to further a legitimate and compelling governmental interest. Aime v. Commonwealth, supra at 673, 611 N.E.2d 204. To qualify as fundamental the asserted right must be objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition, [ Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 503, 97 S.Ct.
1932, 52 L.Ed.2d 531 (1977) (plurality opinion) ] ... and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720721, 117 S.Ct. 2258, 138 L.Ed.2d 772 (1997), quoting Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325, 326, 58 S.Ct. 149, 82 L.Ed. 288 (1937) (right to assisted suicide does not fall within fundamental right to refuse medical treatment because *354 novel and unsupported by tradition) (citations omitted). See Three Juveniles v. Commonwealth, 390 Mass. 357, 367, 455 N.E.2d 1203 (1983) (O'Connor, J., dissenting), cert. denied sub nom. Keefe v. Massachusetts, 465 U.S. 1068, 104 S.Ct. 1421, 79 L.Ed.2d 746 (1984). Rights that are not considered fundamental merit due process protection if they have been irrationally burdened. See Massachusetts Fed'n of Teachers v. Board of Educ., 436 Mass. 763, 777779 & n. 14, 767 N.E.2d 549 (2002). Although this court did not state that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right worthy of strict scrutiny protection, it nonetheless deemed it a constitutionally protected right by applying rational basis review. Before applying any level of constitutional analysis there must be a recognized right at stake. Same-sex marriage, or the right to marry the person of one's choice as the court today defines that right, does not fall within the fundamental right to marry. Same-sex marriage is not deeply rooted in this Nation's history, and the court does not suggest that it is. Except for the occasional isolated decision in recent years, see, e.g., Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194, 744 A.2d 864 (1999), same-sex marriage is not a right, fundamental or otherwise, recognized in
Page 49
this country. Just one example of the Legislature's refusal to recognize same-sex marriage can be found in a section of the legislation **977 amending G.L. c. 151B to prohibit discrimination in the workplace on the basis of sexual orientation, which states: Nothing in this act shall be construed so as to legitimize or validate a homosexual marriage.... St.1989, c. 516, 19. In this Commonwealth and in this country, the roots of the institution of marriage are deeply set in history as a civil union between a single man and a single woman. There is no basis for the court to recognize same-sex marriage as a constitutionally protected right. 3. Remedy. The remedy that the court has fashioned both in the name of equal protection and due process exceeds the bounds of judicial restraint mandated by art. 30. The remedy that construes genderspecific language as gender-neutral amounts to a statutory revision that replaces the intent of the Legislature with that of the court. Article 30 permits the court to apply principles of equal protection and to modify statutory language only if legislative intent is preserved. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Chou, 433 Mass. 229, 238239, 741 N.E.2d 17 (2001) (judicial *355 rewriting of gender language permissible only when Legislature intended to include both men and women). See also Lowell v. Kowalski, 380 Mass. 663, 670, 405 N.E.2d 135 (1980). Here, the alteration of the genderspecific language alters precisely what the Legislature unambiguously intended to preserve, the marital rights of single men and women. Such a dramatic change in social institutions must remain at the behest of the people through the democratic process.
Where the application of equal protection principles do not permit rewriting a statute in a manner that preserves the intent of the Legislature, we do not rewrite the statute. In Dalli v. Board of Educ., 358 Mass. 753, 267 N.E.2d 219 (1971), the court refused to rewrite a statute in a manner that would include unintended individuals. To attempt to interpret this [statute] as including those in the category of the plaintiff would be to engage in a judicial enlargement of the clear statutory language beyond the limit of our judicial function. We have traditionally and consistently declined to trespass on legislative territory in deference to the time tested wisdom of the separation of powers as expressed in art. [30] of the Declaration of Rights of the Constitution of Massachusetts even when it appeared that a highly desirable and just result might thus be achieved. Id. at 759, 267 N.E.2d 219. Recently, in Connors v. Boston, 430 Mass. 31, 714 N.E.2d 335 (1999), we refused to expand health insurance coverage to include domestic partners because such an expansion was within the province of the Legislature, where policy affecting family relationships is most appropriate and frequently considered. Id. at 4243, 714 N.E.2d 335. Principles of equal protection do not permit the marriage statutes to be changed in the manner that we have seen today. This court has previously exercised the judicial restraint mandated by art. 30 and declined to extend due process protection to rights not traditionally coveted, despite recognition of their social importance. See Tobin's Case, 424 Mass. 250, 252253, 675 N.E.2d 781 (1997) (receiving workers' compensation benefits not fundamental right); Doe v. Superintendent of Schs. of Worcester, 421 Mass. 117, 129, 653
Page 50
N.E.2d 1088 (1995) (declaring education not fundamental right); Williams v. Secretary of the Executive Office of Human Servs., 414 Mass. 551, 565, 609 N.E.2d 447 (1993) (no fundamental right to receive mental health services); *356 Matter of Tocci, 413 Mass. 542, 548 n. 4, 600 N.E.2d 577 (1992) (no fundamental right to practice law); Commonwealth v. Henry's Drywall Co., 366 Mass. 539, 542, 320 N.E.2d 911 (1974) (no **978 fundamental right to pursue one's business). Courts have authority to recognize rights that are supported by the Constitution and history, but the power to create novel rights is reserved for the people through the democratic and legislative processes. Likewise, the Supreme Court exercises restraint in the application of substantive due process because guideposts for responsible decisionmaking in this unchartered area are scarce and openended. [ Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125, 112 S.Ct. 1061, 117 L.Ed.2d 261 (1992).] By extending constitutional protection to an asserted right or liberty interest, we, to a great extent, place the matter outside the arena of public debate and legislative action. We must therefore exercise the utmost care whenever we are asked to break new ground in this field, [ id.], lest the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause be subtly transformed into the policy preferences of the Members of this Court, Moore [v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 502, 97 S.Ct. 1932, 52 L.Ed.2d 531 (1977) ] (plurality opinion). Washington v. Glucksberg, supra at 720, 117 S.Ct. 2258. The court has extruded a new right from principles of substantive due process, and in doing so it has distorted the meaning
and purpose of due process. The purpose of substantive due process is to protect existing rights, not to create new rights. Its aim is to thwart government intrusion, not invite it. The court asserts that the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights serves to guard against government intrusion into each individual's sphere of privacy. Ante at 329, 798 N.E.2d at 959. Similarly, the Supreme Court has called for increased due process protection when individual privacy and intimacy are threatened by unnecessary government imposition. See, e.g., Lawrence v. Texas, 539U.S. 558, 123 S.Ct. 2472, 156 L.Ed.2d 508 (2003) (private nature of sexual behavior implicates increased due process protection); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 92 S.Ct. 1029, 31 L.Ed.2d 349 (1972) (privacy protection extended to procreation decisions within nonmarital context); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965) (due process invoked because of intimate nature of procreation decisions). These cases, along with the Moe case, focus on the threat to privacy when government seeks to regulate the most intimate activity behind bedroom doors. The statute in question does not seek to regulate intimate activity *357 within an intimate relationship, but merely gives formal recognition to a particular marriage. The State has respected the private lives of the plaintiffs, and has done nothing to intrude in the relationships that each of the plaintiff couples enjoy. Cf. Lawrence v. Texas, supra at 2484 (case does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter). Ironically, by extending the marriage laws to same-sex couples the court has turned substantive due process on its head and used it to interject government into the
Page 51
plaintiffs' lives. SOSMAN, J. (dissenting, with whom Spina and Cordy, JJ., join). In applying the rational basis test to any challenged statutory scheme, the issue is not whether the Legislature's rationale behind that scheme is persuasive to us, but only whether it satisfies a minimal threshold of rationality. Today, rather than apply that test, the court announces that, because it is persuaded that there are no differences between same-sex and opposite-sex couples, the Legislature has no rational basis for treating them differently with respect to the granting of marriage **979 licenses. FN1 Reduced to its essence, the court's opinion concludes that, because same-sex couples are now raising children, and withholding the benefits of civil marriage from their union makes it harder for them to raise those children, the State must therefore provide the benefits of civil marriage to same-sex couples just as it does to opposite-sex couples. Of course, many people are raising children outside the confines of traditional marriage, and, by definition, those children are being deprived of the various benefits that would flow if they were being raised in a household with married parents. That does not mean that the *358 Legislature must accord the full benefits of marital status on every household raising children. Rather, the Legislature need only have some rational basis for concluding that, at present, those alternate family structures have not yet been conclusively shown to be the equivalent of the marital family structure that has established itself as a successful one over a period of centuries. People are of course at liberty to raise their children in various family structures, so long as they are not literally harming their children by
doing so. See Blixt v. Blixt, 437 Mass. 649, 668670, 774 N.E.2d 1052 (2002) (Sosman, J., dissenting), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1189, 123 S.Ct. 1259, 154 L.Ed.2d 1022 (2003). That does not mean that the State is required to provide identical forms of encouragement, endorsement, and support to all of the infinite variety of household structures that a free society permits. FN1. The one difference that the court acknowledgesthat sexual relations between persons of the same sex does not result in pregnancy and childbirthit immediately brushes aside on the theory that civil marriage somehow has nothing to do with begetting children. Ante at 331333, 798 N.E.2d at 961962. For the reasons explained in detail in Justice Cordy's dissent, in which I join, the reasons justifying the civil marriage laws are inextricably linked to the fact that human sexual intercourse between a man and a woman frequently results in pregnancy and childbirth. Indeed, as Justice Cordy outlines, that fact lies at the core of why society fashioned the institution of marriage in the first place. Post at 381382, 798 N.E.2d at 995996 (Cordy, J., dissenting). Based on our own philosophy of child rearing, and on our observations of the children being raised by same-sex couples to whom we are personally close, we may be of the view that what matters to children is not the gender, or sexual orientation, or even the number of the adults who raise them, but rather whether those adults provide the children with a nurturing, stable, safe, consistent, and supportive
Page 52
environment in which to mature. Same-sex couples can provide their children with the requisite nurturing, stable, safe, consistent, and supportive environment in which to mature, just as opposite-sex couples do. It is therefore understandable that the court might view the traditional definition of marriage as an unnecessary anachronism, rooted in historical prejudices that modern society has in large measure rejected and biological limitations that modern science has overcome. It is not, however, our assessment that matters. Conspicuously absent from the court's opinion today is any acknowledgment that the attempts at scientific study of the ramifications of raising children in same-sex couple households are themselves in their infancy and have so far produced inconclusive and conflicting results. Notwithstanding our belief that gender and sexual orientation of parents should not matter to the success of the child rearing venture, studies to date reveal that there are still some observable differences between children raised by opposite-sex couples and children raised by same-sex couples. *359 See post at 386387, **980 798 N.E.2d at 998999 (Cordy, J., dissenting). Interpretation of the data gathered by those studies then becomes clouded by the personal and political beliefs of the investigators, both as to whether the differences identified are positive or negative, and as to the untested explanations of what might account for those differences. (This is hardly the first time in history that the ostensible steel of the scientific method has melted and buckled under the intense heat of political and religious passions.) Even in the absence of bias or political agenda behind the various studies of children raised by same-sex couples, the most neutral and
strict application of scientific principles to this field would be constrained by the limited period of observation that has been available. Gay and lesbian couples living together openly, and official recognition of them as their children's sole parents, comprise a very recent phenomenon, and the recency of that phenomenon has not yet permitted any study of how those children fare as adults and at best minimal study of how they fare during their adolescent years. The Legislature can rationally view the state of the scientific evidence as unsettled on the critical question it now faces: are families headed by same-sex parents equally successful in rearing children from infancy to adulthood as families headed by parents of opposite sexes? Our belief that children raised by same-sex couples should fare the same as children raised in traditional families is just that: a passionately held but utterly untested belief. The Legislature is not required to share that belief but may, as the creator of the institution of civil marriage, wish to see the proof before making a fundamental alteration to that institution. Although ostensibly applying the rational basis test to the civil marriage statutes, it is abundantly apparent that the court is in fact applying some undefined stricter standard to assess the constitutionality of the marriage statutes' exclusion of same-sex couples. While avoiding any express conclusion as to any of the proffered routes by which that exclusion would be subjected to a test of strict scrutinyinfringement of a fundamental right, discrimination based on gender, or discrimination against gays and lesbians as a suspect classificationthe opinion repeatedly alludes to those concepts in a prolonged and eloquent prelude before articulating its view that the
Page 53
exclusion lacks *360 even a rational basis. See, e.g., ante at 313, 798 N.E.2d at 948 (noting that State Constitution is more protective of individual liberty and equality, demands broader protection for fundamental rights, and is less tolerant of government intrusion into the protected spheres of private life than Federal Constitution); ante at 322, 798 N.E.2d at 949 (describing decision to marry and choice of marital partner as among life's momentous acts of self-definition); ante at 326, 798 N.E.2d at 955 (repeated references to right to marry as fundamental); ante at 327328, 798 N.E.2d at 958959 (repeated comparisons to statutes prohibiting interracial marriage, which were predicated on suspect classification of race); ante at 328, 798 N.E.2d at 958959 (characterizing ban on same-sex marriage as invidious discrimination that deprives individuals of access to an institution of fundamental legal, personal, and social significance and again noting that Massachusetts Constitution protects matters of personal liberty against government incursion more zealously than Federal Constitution); ante at 329, 798 N.E.2d at 959 (characterizing whom to marry, how to express sexual intimacy, and whether and how to establish a family as among the most basic of every individual's liberty and due process rights); ante at 333, 798 N.E.2d at 962 **981 (opining that in overlapping realms of personal autonomy, marriage, family life, and child rearing, characterized as fundamentally private areas of life, court uses integrated analysis instead of narrow focus). See also ante at 337 n. 29, 798 N.E.2d at 965 (suggesting that prohibition on same-sex marriage impose [s] limits on personal beliefs); ante at 339 n. 31, 798 N.E.2d at 966 (suggesting that total deference to Legislature in this case
would be equivalent to strip[ping] judiciary of its constitutional authority to decide challenges in such areas as forced sterilization, antimiscegenation statutes, and abortion, even though all cited examples pertain to fundamental rights analyzed under strict scrutiny, not under rational basis test); ante at 339, 798 N.E.2d at 966967 (civil marriage as a right of fundamental importance); ante at 341, 798 N.E.2d at 967 (noting State policy of preventing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation); id. (prohibition against same-sex marriage inconsistent with genderneutral laws promoting stable families, and rooted in *361 persistent prejudices against homosexuals); ante at 342, 798 N.E.2d at 968 (prohibition against same-sex marriage violates the basic premises of individual liberty). In short, while claiming to apply a mere rational basis test, the court's opinion works up an enormous head of steam by repeated invocations of avenues by which to subject the statute to strict scrutiny, apparently hoping that that head of steam will generate momentum sufficient to propel the opinion across the yawning chasm of the very deferential rational basis test. Shorn of these emotion-laden invocations, the opinion ultimately opines that the Legislature is acting irrationally when it grants benefits to a proven successful family structure while denying the same benefits to a recent, perhaps promising, but essentially untested alternate family structure. Placed in a more neutral context, the court would never find any irrationality in such an approach. For example, if the issue were government subsidies and tax benefits promoting use of an established technology for energy efficient heating, the court would find no
Page 54
equal protection or due process violation in the Legislature's decision not to grant the same benefits to an inventor or manufacturer of some new, alternative technology who did not yet have sufficient data to prove that that new technology was just as good as the established technology. That the early results from preliminary testing of the new technology might look very promising, or that the theoretical underpinnings of the new technology might appear flawless, would not make it irrational for the Legislature to grant subsidies and tax breaks to the established technology and deny them to the still unproved newcomer in the field. While programs that affect families and children register higher on our emotional scale than programs affecting energy efficiency, our standards for what is or is not rational should not be bent by those emotional tugs. Where, as here, there is no ground for applying strict scrutiny, the emotionally compelling nature of the subject matter should not affect the manner in which we apply the rational basis test. Or, to the extent that the court is going to invoke such emotion-laden and valueladen rhetoric as a means of heightening the degree of scrutiny to be applied, the same form of rhetoric can be employed to justify the Legislature's proceeding with extreme caution in this area. In considering whether the *362 Legislature has a rational reason for postponing a dramatic change to the definition of marriage, it is surely pertinent to the inquiry to recognize that this proffered change affects not just a load-bearing wall of our social structure but the very cornerstone of that structure. **982 See post at 393, 798 N.E.2d at 1003 (Cordy, J., dissenting). Before making a fundamental alteration to that cornerstone, it is eminently rational for the Legislature
to require a high degree of certainty as to the precise consequences of that alteration, to make sure that it can be done safely, without either temporary or lasting damage to the structural integrity of the entire edifice. The court today blithely assumes that there are no such dangers and that it is safe to proceed (see ante at 340, 798 N.E.2d at 967), an assumption that is not supported by anything more than the court's blind faith that it is so. More importantly, it is not our confidence in the lack of adverse consequences that is at issue, or even whether that confidence is justifiable. The issue is whether it is rational to reserve judgment on whether this change can be made at this time without damaging the institution of marriage or adversely affecting the critical role it has played in our society. Absent consensus on the issue (which obviously does not exist), or unanimity amongst scientists studying the issue (which also does not exist), or a more prolonged period of observation of this new family structure (which has not yet been possible), it is rational for the Legislature to postpone any redefinition of marriage that would include same-sex couples until such time as it is certain that that redefinition will not have unintended and undesirable social consequences. Through the political process, the people may decide when the benefits of extending civil marriage to same-sex couples have been shown to outweigh whatever risksbe they palpable or ephemeralare involved. However minimal the risks of that redefinition of marriage may seem to us from our vantage point, it is not up to us to decide what risks society must run, and it is inappropriate for us to arrogate that power to ourselves merely because we are confident that it is the right thing to do.
Page 55
Ante at 350, 798 N.E.2d at 973 (Greaney, J., concurring). As a matter of social history, today's opinion may represent a great turning point that many will hail as a tremendous step *363 toward a more just society. As a matter of constitutional jurisprudence, however, the case stands as an aberration. To reach the result it does, the court has tortured the rational basis test beyond recognition. I fully appreciate the strength of the temptation to find this particular law unconstitutional there is much to be said for the argument that excluding gay and lesbian couples from the benefits of civil marriage is cruelly unfair and hopelessly outdated; the inability to marry has a profound impact on the personal lives of committed gay and lesbian couples (and their children) to whom we are personally close (our friends, neighbors, family members, classmates, and co-workers); and our resolution of this issue takes place under the intense glare of national and international publicity. Speaking metaphorically, these factors have combined to turn the case before us into a perfect storm of a constitutional question. In my view, however, such factors make it all the more imperative that we adhere precisely and scrupulously to the established guideposts of our constitutional jurisprudence, a jurisprudence that makes the rational basis test an extremely deferential one that focuses on the rationality, not the persuasiveness, of the potential justifications for the classifications in the legislative scheme. I trust that, once this particular storm clears, we will return to the rational basis test as it has always been understood and applied. Applying that deferential test in the manner it is customarily applied, the exclusion of gay
and lesbian couples from the institution of civil marriage passes constitutional muster. I respectfully dissent. **983 CORDY, J. (dissenting, with whom Spina and Sosman, JJ., join). The court's opinion concludes that the Department of Public Health has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for limiting civil marriage to opposite-sex unions, and that there is no reasonable relationship between a disqualification of same-sex couples who wish to enter into a civil marriage and the protection of public health, safety, or general welfare. Consequently, it holds that the marriage statute cannot withstand scrutiny under the Massachusetts Constitution. Because I find these conclusions to be unsupportable in light of the nature of the rights and regulations at issue, the presumption *364 of constitutional validity and significant deference afforded to legislative enactments, and the undesirability of the judiciary substituting its notions of correct policy for that of a popularly elected Legislature responsible for making such policy, Zayre Corp. v. Attorney Gen., 372 Mass. 423, 433, 362 N.E.2d 878 (1977), I respectfully dissent. Although it may be desirable for many reasons to extend to same-sex couples the benefits and burdens of civil marriage (and the plaintiffs have made a powerfully reasoned case for that extension), that decision must be made by the Legislature, not the court. If a statute either impairs the exercise of a fundamental right protected by the due process or liberty provisions of our State Constitution, or discriminates based on a constitutionally suspect classification such as sex, it will be subject to strict scrutiny when its validity is challenged. See Blixt v.
Page 56
Blixt, 437 Mass. 649, 655656, 660661, 774 N.E.2d 1052 (2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1189, 123 S.Ct. 1259, 154 L.Ed.2d 1022 (2003) (fundamental right); Lowell v. Kowalski, 380 Mass. 663, 666, 405 N.E.2d 135 (1980) (sex-based classification). If it does neither, a statute will be upheld if it is rationally related to a legitimate State purpose. Hallett v. Wrentham, 398 Mass. 550, 557, 499 N.E.2d 1189 (1986), quoting Paro v. Longwood Hosp., 373 Mass. 645, 649, 369 N.E.2d 985 (1977). This test, referred to in State and Federal constitutional jurisprudence as the rational basis test, FN1 is virtually identical in substance and effect to the test applied to a law promulgated under the State's broad police powers (pursuant to which the marriage statutes and most other licensing and regulatory laws are enacted): that is, the law is valid if it is reasonably related to the protection of public health, safety, or general welfare. See, e.g., Leigh v. Board of Registration in Nursing, 395 Mass. 670, 682683, 481 N.E.2d 1347 (1985) (applying rational basis review to question of State exercise of police power). FN1. The rational basis standard applied under the Massachusetts Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the same. See Chebacco Liquor Mart, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Comm'n, 429 Mass. 721, 722723, 711 N.E.2d 135 (1999). The Massachusetts marriage statute does not impair the exercise of a recognized fundamental right, or discriminate on the basis of sex in violation of the equal rights amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution. Consequently, it is subject to *365 review only to
determine whether it satisfies the rational basis test. Because a conceivable rational basis exists upon which the Legislature could conclude that the marriage statute furthers the legitimate State purpose of ensuring, promoting, and supporting an optimal social structure for the bearing and raising of children, it is a valid exercise of the State's police power. A. Limiting marriage to the union of one man and one woman does not impair **984 the exercise of a fundamental right. Civil marriage is an institution created by the State. In Massachusetts, the marriage statutes are derived from English common law, see Commonwealth v. Knowlton, 2 Mass. 530, 534 (1807), and were first enacted in colonial times. Commonwealth v. Munson, 127 Mass. 459, 460 (1879). They were enacted to secure public interests and not for religious purposes or to promote personal interests or aspirations. (See discussion infra at 381385). As the court notes in its opinion, the institution of marriage is the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife, ante at 319, 798 N.E.2d at 952, and it has always been so under Massachusetts law, colonial or otherwise. The plaintiffs contend that because the right to choose to marry is a fundamental right, the right to marry the person of one's choice, including a member of the same sex, must also be a fundamental right. While the court stops short of deciding that the right to marry someone of the same sex is fundamental such that strict scrutiny must be applied to any statute that impairs it, it nevertheless agrees with the plaintiffs that the right to choose to marry is of fundamental importance (among the most basic of every person's liberty and due process rights) and would be hollow if
Page 57
an individual was foreclosed from freely choosing the person with whom to share ... the ... institution of civil marriage. Ante at 329, 798 N.E.2d at 959. Hence, it concludes that a marriage license cannot be denied to an individual who wishes to marry someone of the same sex. In reaching this result the court has transmuted the right to marry into a right to change the institution of marriage itself. This feat of reasoning succeeds only if one accepts the proposition that the definition of the institution of marriage as a union between a man and a woman is merely conclusory (as suggested, ante at 348, 798 N.E.2d at 972 [Greaney, J., concurring] ), rather than the basis on which the *366 right to partake in it has been deemed to be of fundamental importance. In other words, only by assuming that marriage includes the union of two persons of the same sex does the court conclude that restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples infringes on the right of same-sex couples to marry. FN2 FN2. The same semantic sleight of hand could transform every other restriction on marriage into an infringement of a right of fundamental importance. For example, if one assumes that a group of mature, consenting, committed adults can form a marriage, the prohibition on polygamy (G.L. c. 207, 4), infringes on their right to marry. In legal analysis as in mathematics, it is fundamentally erroneous to assume the truth of the very thing that is to be proved. The plaintiffs ground their contention that they have a fundamental right to marry
a person of the same sex in a long line of Supreme Court decisions, e.g., Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 98 S.Ct. 673, 54 L.Ed.2d 618 (1978); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 86 L.Ed. 1655 (1942); that discuss the importance of marriage. In context, all of these decisions and their discussions are about the fundamental nature of the institution of marriage as it has existed and been understood in this country, not as the court has redefined it today. Even in that context, its fundamental nature is derivative of the nature of the interests that underlie or are associated with it.FN3 An **985 examination of those interests reveals that they are either not shared by same-sex couples or not implicated by the marriage statutes. FN3. Casting the right to civil marriage as a fundamental right in the constitutional sense is somewhat peculiar. It is not referred to as such in either the State or Federal Constitution, and unlike other recognized fundamental rights (such as the right to procreate, the right to be free of government restraint, or the right to refuse medical treatment), civil marriage is wholly a creature of State statute. If by enacting a civil marriage statutory scheme Massachusetts has created a fundamental right, then it could never repeal its own statute without violating the fundamental rights of its inhabitants. Supreme Court cases that have
Page 58
described marriage or the right to marry as fundamental have focused primarily on the underlying interest of every individual in procreation, which, historically, could only legally occur within the construct of marriage because sexual intercourse outside of marriage was a *367 criminal act.FN4 In Skinner v. Oklahoma, supra, the first case to characterize marriage as a fundamental right, the Supreme Court stated, as its rationale for striking down a sterilization statute, that [m]arriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence of the race. Id. at 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110. In concluding that a sterilized individual is forever deprived of a basic liberty, id., the Court was obviously referring to procreation rather than marriage, as this court recognized in Matter of Moe, 385 Mass. 555, 560, 432 N.E.2d 712 (1982). Similarly, in Loving v. Virginia, supra, in which the United States Supreme Court struck down Virginia's antimiscegenation statute, the Court implicitly linked marriage with procreation in describing marriage as fundamental to our very existence. Id. at 12, 87 S.Ct. 1817. In Zablocki v. Redhail, supra, the Court expressly linked the right to marry with the right to procreate, concluding that if [the plaintiff's] right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State ... allows sexual relations legally to take place. Id. at 386, 98 S.Ct. 673. Once again, in Turner v. Safley, supra, striking a State regulation that curtailed the right of an inmate to marry, the Court included among the important attributes of such marriages the expectation that [the marriage] ultimately will be fully consummated. Id. at 96, 107 S.Ct. 2254. See Milford v. Worcester, 7 Mass. 48, 52 (1810) (purpose of marriage is to regulate, chasten, and refine, the intercourse
between the sexes; and to multiply [and] preserve ... the species). Because samesex couples are unable to procreate on their own, any right to marriage they may possess cannot be based on their interest in procreation, which has been essential to the Supreme Court's denomination of the right to marry as fundamental. FN4. For example, see G.L. c. 272, 14 and 18, the Massachusetts adultery and fornication statutes. Supreme Court cases recognizing a right to privacy in intimate decisionmaking, e.g., Griswold v. Connecticut, supra (striking down statute prohibiting use of contraceptives); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973) (striking down statute criminalizing abortion), have also focused primarily on sexual relations and the decision whether or not to procreate, and have refused to recognize an unlimited right to privacy. Id. at 154, 93 S.Ct. 705. Massachusetts courts have been no more willing than the Federal *368 courts to adopt a universal[ ] privacy doctrine, Marcoux v. Attorney Gen., 375 Mass. 63, 67, 375 N.E.2d 688 (1978), or to derive controversial new rights from the Constitution. Aime v. Commonwealth, 414 Mass. 667, 674 n. 10, 611 N.E.2d 204 (1993). **986 What the Griswold Court found repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship was the prospect of allow[ing] the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives. Griswold v. Connecticut, supra at 485486, 85 S.Ct. 1678. See Moe v. Secretary of Admin. & Fin., 382 Mass. 629, 658, 417 N.E.2d 387 (1981), quoting L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law 924 (1978) (finding it difficult to imagine a
Page 59
clearer case of bodily intrusion than being forced to bear a child). When Justice Goldberg spoke of marital relations in the context of finding it difficult to imagine what is more private or more intimate than a husband and wife's marital relations[hip], Griswold v. Connecticut, supra at 495, 85 S.Ct. 1678 (Goldberg, J., concurring), he was obviously referring to sexual relations.FN5 Similarly, in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 123 S.Ct. 2472, 156 L.Ed.2d 508 (2003), it was the criminalization of private sexual behavior that the Court found violative of the petitioners' liberty interest. FN5. While the facts of Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965), involved a married couple, later decisions clarify that its holding was not premised on the marriage relationship. See Carey v. Population Servs. Int'l, 431 U.S. 678, 687, 97 S.Ct. 2010, 52 L.Ed.2d 675 (1977) (stating that Griswold rested on right of the individual to be free from governmental interference with child-bearing decisions [emphasis in original] ); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453454, 92 S.Ct. 1029, 31 L.Ed.2d 349 (1972) (same). In Massachusetts jurisprudence, protected decisions generally have been limited to those concerning whether or not to beget or bear a child, Matter of Moe, 385 Mass. 555, 564, 432 N.E.2d 712 (1982) (see Opinion of the Justices, 423 Mass. 1201, 12341235 [1996] [focus of (the Griswold and Roe cases) and the cases following them has been the intrusion ... into the especially intimate aspects of a person's life implicated in procreation and
childbearing] ); how to raise a child, see Care & Protection of Robert, 408 Mass. 52, 58, 60, 556 N.E.2d 993 (1990); or whether or not to accept medical treatment, see Brophy v. New England Sinai Hosp., Inc., 398 Mass. 417, 430, 497 N.E.2d 626 (1986); Superintendent of Belchertown State Sch. v. Saikewicz, 373 Mass. 728, 742, 370 N.E.2d 417 (1977), none of which is at issue here. See also Commonwealth v. Balthazar, 366 Mass. 298, 301, 318 N.E.2d 478 (1974) (statute punishing unnatural and *369 lascivious acts does not apply to sexual conduct engaged in by adults in private, in light of articulation of the constitutional right of an individual to be free from government regulation of certain sex related activities). The marriage statute, which regulates only the act of obtaining a marriage license, does not implicate privacy in the sense that it has found constitutional protection under Massachusetts and Federal law. Cf. Commonwealth v. King, 374 Mass. 5, 14, 372 N.E.2d 196 (1977) (solicitation of prostitution while in a place to which the public had access implicated no constitutionally protected rights of privacy); Marcoux v. Attorney Gen., supra at 68, 375 N.E.2d 688 (right to privacy, at most, protects conduct limited more or less to the hearth). It does not intrude on any right that the plaintiffs have to privacy in their choices regarding procreation, an intimate partner or sexual relations.FN6 The plaintiffs' right to privacy in **987 such matters does not require that the State officially endorse their choices in order for the right to be constitutionally vindicated. FN6. Contrast Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 123 S.Ct. 2472, 156 L.Ed.2d 508 (2003), in which the
Page 60
United States Supreme Court struck down the Texas criminal sodomy statute because it constituted State intrusion on some of these very choices. Although some of the privacy cases also speak in terms of personal autonomy, no court has ever recognized such an openended right. That many of the rights and liberties protected by the Due Process Clause sound in personal autonomy does not warrant the sweeping conclusion that any and all important, intimate, and personal decisions are so protected.... Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 727, 117 S.Ct. 2258, 138 L.Ed.2d 772 (1997). Such decisions are protected not because they are important, intimate, and personal, but because the right or liberty at stake is so deeply rooted in our history and traditions, or so fundamental to our concept of constitutionally ordered liberty that it is protected by due process. Id. Accordingly, the Supreme Court has concluded that while the decision to refuse unwanted medical treatment is fundamental, Cruzan v. Director, Mo. Dep't of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 278, 110 S.Ct. 2841, 111 L.Ed.2d 224 (1990), because it is deeply rooted in our nation's history and tradition, the equally personal and profound decision to commit suicide is not because of the absence of such roots. Washington v. Glucksberg, supra. *370 While the institution of marriage is deeply rooted in the history and traditions of our country and our State, the right to marry someone of the same sex is not. No matter how personal or intimate a decision to marry someone of the same sex might be, the right to make it is not guaranteed by the right of personal autonomy.
The protected right to freedom of association, in the sense of freedom of choice to enter into and maintain certain intimate human relationships, Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 617, 104 S.Ct. 3244, 82 L.Ed.2d 462 (1984) (as an element of liberty or due process rather than free speech), is similarly limited and unimpaired by the marriage statute. As recognized by the Supreme Court, that right affords protection only to certain kinds of highly personal relationships, id. at 618, 104 S.Ct. 3244, such as those between husband and wife, parent and child, and among close relatives, id. at 619, 104 S.Ct. 3244, that have played a critical role in the culture and traditions of the Nation, id. at 618619, 104 S.Ct. 3244, and are deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition. Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 498499, 503, 97 S.Ct. 1932, 52 L.Ed.2d 531 (1977) (distinguishing on this basis between family and nonfamily relationships). Unlike opposite-sex marriages, which have deep historic roots, or the parent-child relationship, which reflects a strong tradition founded on the history and culture of Western civilization and is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition, Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 232, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972); or extended family relationships, which have been honored throughout our history, Moore v. East Cleveland, supra at 505, 97 S.Ct. 1932, same-sex relationships, although becoming more accepted, are certainly not so deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition as to warrant such enhanced constitutional protection. Although expressions of emotional support and public commitment have been recognized as among the attributes of
Page 61
marriage, which, [t]aken together ... form a constitutionally protected marital relationship (emphasis added), Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95, 96, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987), those interests, standing alone, are not the source of a fundamental right to marry. While damage to one's status in the community may be **988 sufficient harm to confer standing to sue, Lowell v. Kowalski, 380 Mass. 663, 667, 405 N.E.2d 135 (1980), such status has never been recognized as a *371 fundamental right. See Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 701, 96 S.Ct. 1155, 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976) (mere damage to reputation does not constitute deprivation of liberty). Finally, the constitutionally protected interest in child rearing, recognized in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 43 S.Ct. 625, 67 L.Ed. 1042 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534535, 45 S.Ct. 571, 69 L.Ed. 1070 (1925); and Care & Protection of Robert, supra at 58, 60, 556 N.E.2d 993, is not implicated or infringed by the marriage statute here. The fact that the plaintiffs cannot marry has no bearing on their independently protected constitutional rights as parents which, as with opposite-sex parents, are limited only by their continued fitness and the best interests of their children. Bezio v. Patenaude, 381 Mass. 563, 579, 410 N.E.2d 1207 (1980) (courts may not use parent's sexual orientation as reason to deny child custody). Because the rights and interests discussed above do not afford the plaintiffs any fundamental right that would be impaired by a statute limiting marriage to members of the opposite sex, they have no fundamental right to be declared married by the State.
Insofar as the right to marry someone of the same sex is neither found in the unique historical context of our Constitution FN7 nor compelled by the meaning ascribed by this court to the liberty and due process protections contained within it, should the court nevertheless recognize it as a fundamental right? The consequences of deeming a right to be fundamental are profound, and this court, as well as the Supreme Court, has been very cautious in recognizing them. FN8 Such caution**989 is required by separation of powers principles. If a right is found *372 to be fundamental, it is, to a great extent, removed from the arena of public debate and legislative action; utmost care must be taken when breaking new ground in this field lest the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause be subtly transformed into the policy preferences of [judges]. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720, 117 S.Ct. 2258 (1997). FN7. The statutes from which our current marriage laws derive were enacted prior to or shortly after the adoption of our Constitution in 1780, and may well be considered ... as affording some light in regard to the views and intentions of [the Constitution's] founders. Merriam v. Secretary of the Commonwealth, 375 Mass. 246, 253, 376 N.E.2d 838 (1978). FN8. Tobin's Case, 424 Mass. 250, 252253, 675 N.E.2d 781 (1997) (no fundamental right to receive workers' compensation benefits); Doe v. Superintendent of Schs. of Worcester, 421 Mass. 117, 129, 653 N.E.2d 1088 (1995) (no fundamental right to education);
Page 62
Williams v. Secretary of the Executive Office of Human Servs., 414 Mass. 551, 565, 609 N.E.2d 447 (1993) (no fundamental right to receive mental health services); Matter of Tocci, 413 Mass. 542, 548 n. 4, 600 N.E.2d 577 (1992) (no fundamental right to practice law); Rushworth v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 413 Mass. 265, 269 n. 5, 596 N.E.2d 340 (1992) (no fundamental right to operate motor vehicle); English v. New England Med. Ctr., Inc., 405 Mass. 423, 429, 541 N.E.2d 329 (1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1056, 110 S.Ct. 866, 107 L.Ed.2d 949 (1990) (no fundamental right to recover tort damages); Commonwealth v. Henry's Drywall Co., 366 Mass. 539, 542, 320 N.E.2d 911 (1974) (no fundamental right to pursue one's business). Cf. Aime v. Commonwealth, 414 Mass. 667, 674 n. 10, 611 N.E.2d 204 (1993) (recognizing right to be free from physical restraint does not involve judicial derivation of controversial new rights from the Constitution). See generally Williams v. Secretary of the Executive Office of Human Servs., supra at 566, 609 N.E.2d 447 (recognizing fundamental right to receive mental health services would represent an enormous and unwarranted extension of the judiciary into the [Department of Mental Health]'s authority); Ford v. Grafton, 44 Mass.App.Ct. 715, 730731, 693 N.E.2d 1047, cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1040, 119 S.Ct. 591, 142 L.Ed.2d 534 (1998), quoting DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep't of Social Servs., 489
U.S. 189, 203, 109 S.Ct. 998, 103 L.Ed.2d 249 (1989) (people of Massachusetts may choose by legislation to [provide remedies for grievous harm] ... however, they should not have [such remedies] thrust upon them by this Court's expansion of the Due Process Clause ... ). [T]o rein in the otherwise potentially unlimited scope of substantive due process rights, id. at 722, 117 S.Ct. 2258, both Federal and Massachusetts courts have recognized as fundamental only those rights and liberties which are, objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition, [ Moore v. East Cleveland, supra at 503, 97 S.Ct. 1932] ... and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. Id. at 720721, 97 S.Ct. 1932, quoting Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325, 58 S.Ct. 149, 82 L.Ed. 288 (1937). See Dutil, petitioner, 437 Mass. 9, 13, 768 N.E.2d 1055 (2002) (same). In the area of family-related rights in particular, the Supreme Court has emphasized that the Constitution protects the sanctity of the family precisely because the institution of the family is deeply rooted. Moore v. East Cleveland, supra.FN9 FN9. See Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110, 122123 & n. 3, 127, 109 S.Ct. 2333, 105 L.Ed.2d 91 (1989) (plurality opinion) (limits on substantive due process rights center on respect for the teachings of history); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 501, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965) (Harlan, J., concurring) (same). Applying this limiting principle, the Supreme Court, as noted above, declined to recognize a fundamental right to physician-
Page 63
assisted suicide, which would have required revers[ing] centuries of legal doctrine and practice, and strik [ing] down the considered policy choice of almost every State. *373Washington v. Glucksberg, supra at 723, 117 S.Ct. 2258. While recognizing that public attitudes toward assisted suicide are currently the subject of earnest and profound debate, the Court nevertheless left the continuation and resolution of that debate to the political arena, as it should be in a democratic society. Id. at 719, 735, 117 S.Ct. 2258. Similarly, Massachusetts courts have declined to recognize rights that are not so deeply rooted.FN10 As this court noted in **990 considering whether to recognize a right of terminally ill patients to refuse lifeprolonging treatment, the law always lags behind the most advanced thinking in every area, and must await some common ground, some consensus. Superintendent of Belchertown State Sch. v. Saikewicz, 373 Mass. 728, 737, 370 N.E.2d 417 (1977), quoting Burger, The Law and Medical Advances, 67 Annals Internal Med. Supp. 7, 15, 17 (1967). See Blixt v. Blixt, 437 Mass. 649, 662663 n. 22, 774 N.E.2d 1052 (2002) (social consensus about family relationships is relevant to the constitutional limits on State intervention). FN10. Compare Curtis v. School Comm. of Falmouth, 420 Mass. 749, 756, 652 N.E.2d 580 (1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1067, 116 S.Ct. 753, 133 L.Ed.2d 700 (1996), quoting Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 232, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972) (primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring
American tradition); Aime v. Commonwealth, supra at 676, 611 N.E.2d 204 (right to be free from governmental detention and restraint is firmly embedded in the history of AngloAmerican law); Brophy v. New England Sinai Hosp., Inc., 398 Mass. 417, 430, 497 N.E.2d 626 (1986) (right to make decisions to accept or reject medical treatment has its roots deep in our history and has come to be widely recognized and respected); and Moe v. Secretary of Admin. & Fin., 382 Mass. 629, 649, 417 N.E.2d 387 (1981) (characterizing decision whether to bear child as hold[ing] a particularly important place in the history of the right of privacy and finding something approaching consensus on right to refuse unwanted infringement of bodily integrity), with Trigones v. Attorney Gen., 420 Mass. 859, 863, 652 N.E.2d 893 (1995), quoting Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437, 445, 112 S.Ct. 2572, 120 L.Ed.2d 353 (1992) (upholding statute that does not offend some principle of justice so rooted in the tradition and conscience of our people as to be ranked fundamental); Three Juveniles v. Commonwealth, 390 Mass. 357, 364, 455 N.E.2d 1203 (1983), cert. denied sub nom. Keefe v. Massachusetts, 465 U.S. 1068, 104 S.Ct. 1421, 79 L.Ed.2d 746 (1984) (declining to find fundamental right to child-parent privilege where [n]either Congress nor the Legislature of any State has seen fit to adopt a rule granting [such] a privilege ...); Commonwealth v. Stowell, 389
Page 64
Mass. 171, 174, 449 N.E.2d 357 (1983), quoting Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 152, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973) (declining to recognize right not implicit in the concept of ordered liberty). This is not to say that a statute that has no rational basis must nevertheless be upheld so long as it is of ancient origin. However, [t]he long history of a certain practice ... and its *374 acceptance as an uncontroversial part of our national and State tradition do suggest that [the court] should reflect carefully before striking it down. Colo v. Treasurer & Receiver Gen., 378 Mass. 550, 557, 392 N.E.2d 1195 (1979). As this court has recognized, the fact that a challenged practice is followed by a large number of states ... is plainly worth considering in determining whether the practice offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental. Commonwealth v. Kostka, 370 Mass. 516, 533, 350 N.E.2d 444 (1976), quoting Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790, 798, 72 S.Ct. 1002, 96 L.Ed. 1302 (1952). Although public attitudes toward marriage in general and same-sex marriage in particular have changed and are still evolving, the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which [plaintiffs] contend are manifestly [less] deeply founded than the historic institution of marriage. Matter of Cooper, 187 A.D.2d 128, 133134, 592 N.Y.S.2d 797 (1993). Indeed, it is not readily apparent to what extent contemporary values have embraced the concept of same-sex marriage. Perhaps the clearest and most reliable objective evidence of contemporary values is the
legislation enacted by the country's legislatures, Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 312, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002), quoting Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 331, 109 S.Ct. 2934, 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989). No State Legislature has enacted laws permitting same-sex marriages; and a large majority of States, as well as the United States Congress, have affirmatively prohibited the recognition of such marriages for any purpose. See P. Greenberg, State Laws Affecting Lesbians and Gays, National Conference of State Legislatures Legisbriefs at 1 (April/May 2001) (reporting that, as of May, 2001, thirty-six States had enacted defense of marriage statutes); 1 U.S.C. 7 (2000); 28 U.S.C. 1738C (2000) (Federal Defense of Marriage Act). Given this history and the current state of public opinion, as reflected in the actions of the people's elected representatives, it cannot be said that a right to same-sex marriage is so rooted in the traditions and collective conscience of our people that failure to recognize it would violate the fundamental principles of liberty and justice that lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions. Neither ... [is] a right to same-sex marriage *375 ... implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if it were sacrificed. Baehr v. Lewin, 74 Haw. 530, 556557, 852 P.2d 44 (1993) . See **991Dean v. District of Columbia, 653 A.2d 307, 333 (D.C.1995) (per curiam) (Ferren, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Baker v. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310, 312, 191 N.W.2d 185 (1971), appeal dismissed, 409 U.S. 810, 93 S.Ct. 37, 34 L.Ed.2d 65 (1972); Storrs v. Holcomb, 168 Misc.2d 898, 899900, 645 N.Y.S.2d 286 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1996), dismissed, 245 A.D.2d 943, 666 N.Y.S.2d
Page 65
835 (1997).FN11 The one exception was the Alaska Superior Court, which relied on that State's Constitution's express and broadly construed right to privacy. Brause, 1998 WL 88743 at *3*4 (Alaska Super 1998). In such circumstances, the law with respect to same-sex marriages must be left to develop through legislative processes, subject to the constraints of rationality, lest the court be viewed as using the liberty and due process clauses as vehicles merely to enforce its own views regarding better social policies, a role that the strongly worded separation of powers principles in art. 30 of the Declaration of Rights of our Constitution forbids, and for which the court is particularly ill suited. FN11. Because of the absence of deep historical roots, every court but one that has considered recognizing a fundamental right to same-sex marriage has declined to do so. See, e.g., Standhardt v. Superior Court, 77 P.3d 451 (Ariz.Ct.App.2003); Dean v. District of Columbia, 653 A.2d 307, 333 (D.C.1995) (per curiam) (Ferren, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Baehr v. Lewin, 74 Haw. 530, 556557, 852 P.2d 44 (1993); Baker v. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310, 312314, 191 N.W.2d 185 (1971); Storrs v. Holcomb, 168 Misc.2d 898, 899900, 645 N.Y.S.2d 286 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1996), dismissed, 245 A.D.2d 943, 666 N.Y.S.2d 835 (1997). The one exception was the Alaska Superior Court, which relied on that State's Constitution's express and broadly construed right to privacy. Brause v. Bureau of Vital Statistics, No. 3AN956562CI, 1998 WL 88743 (Alaska Super.Ct. Feb. 27, 1998).
B. The marriage statute, in limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, does not constitute discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of the Equal Rights Amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution. In his concurrence, Justice Greaney contends that the marriage statute constitutes discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of art. 1 of the Declaration of Rights as amended by art. 106 of the Amendments to the Constitution of the Commonwealth, the Equal Rights FN12 Amendment (ERA). Such a conclusion is analytically unsound and inconsistent with the legislative history of the ERA. FN12. Article 106 is referred to as the Equal Rights Amendment. The central purpose of the ERA was to eradicate discrimination against women and in favor of men or vice versa. See *376 Attorney Gen. v. Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Ass'n, 378 Mass. 342, 357, 393 N.E.2d 284 (1979). Consistent with this purpose, we have construed the ERA to prohibit laws that advantage one sex at the expense of the other, but not laws that treat men and women equally, id. at 346349, 393 N.E.2d 284 (assuming that separate but equal treatment of males and females would be constitutionally permissible). The Massachusetts marriage statute does not subject men to different treatment from women; each is equally prohibited from precisely the same conduct. See Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194, 215 n. 13, 744 A.2d 864 (1999) (there is no discrete class subject to differential treatment solely on the basis of sex). Compare Commonwealth v. King, 374 Mass. 5, 16, 372 N.E.2d 196 (1977) (law prohibiting prostitution applied to both male and female prostitutes and
Page 66
therefore did not discriminate), and Personnel Adm'r of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 274275, 99 S.Ct. 2282, 60 L.Ed.2d 870 (1979) (declining to characterize veterans' preference as sex discrimination because it applied to both **992 male and female veterans), with Attorney Gen. v. Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Ass'n, supra, and Lowell v. Kowalski, 380 Mass. 663, 405 N.E.2d 135 (1980) (where statutes and rules at issue advantaged one sex over another). Of course, a statute that on its face treats protected groups equally may still harm, stigmatize, or advantage one over the other. Such was the circumstance in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967), where the Supreme Court struck down a State statute that made interracial marriage a crime, as constituting invidious discrimination on the basis of race. While the statute purported to apply equally to whites and nonwhites, the Court found that it was intended and structured to favor one race (white) and disfavor all others (nonwhites). The statute's legislative history demonstrated that its purpose was not merely to punish interracial marriage, but to do so for the sole benefit of the white race. As the Supreme Court readily concluded, the Virginia law was designed to maintain White Supremacy. Id. at 11, 87 S.Ct. 1817. Consequently, there was a fit between the class that the law was intended to discriminate against (nonwhite races) and the classification enjoying heightened protection (race). By contrast, here there is no evidence that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples was motivated by sexism in general or a desire to disadvantage men or
women in particular. Moreover, no one has identified any harm, burden, disadvantage, or *377 advantage accruing to either gender as a consequence of the Massachusetts marriage statute. In the absence of such effect, the statute limiting marriage to couples of the opposite sex does not violate the ERA's prohibition of sex discrimination.FN13 FN13. Justice Greaney views Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967) , as standing analogously for the proposition that just as a person cannot be barred from marrying another person because of his or her race, a person cannot be barred from marrying another person because of his or her sex. Ante at 346347, 798 N.E.2d at 971972 (Greaney, J., concurring). While superficially attractive, this analogy does not withstand closer scrutiny. Unlike Virginia's antimiscegenation statute, neither the purpose nor effect of the Massachusetts marriage statute is to advantage or disadvantage one gender over the other. This distinction is critical and was central to the Loving decision. More fundamentally, the statute at issue burdened marriage with a requirement that was both constitutionally suspect and unrelated to protecting either the underlying purposes or nature of the institution. In contrast, the limitation of marriage to one man and one woman preserves both its structure and its historic purposes. This conclusion is buttressed by the legislative history of the ERA, which was adopted by the voters on November 2,
Page 67
1976, after being approved by constitutional conventions of the Legislature on August 15, 1973, (by a vote of 2610) and May 14, 1975 (by a vote of 21755). In anticipation of its adoption, the Legislature enacted and, on June 21, 1975, the Governor approved a Resolve providing for an investigation and study by a special commission relative to the effect of the ratification of the proposed amendments to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the Constitution of the United States prohibiting discrimination on account of sex upon the laws, business communities and public in the Commonwealth. Res.1975, c. 26. One of the principal tasks of the commission was to catalog the aspects of the General Laws that would have to be amended for the statutory code to comply with the mandate of the proposed amendment that equality not be abridged on the basis of sex.FN14 FN14. The commission was composed of five State representatives, three State senators and three gubernatorial appointees. All of the gubernatorial appointees were attorneys. **993 On October 19, 1976, just before the general election at which the amendment was to be considered, the commission filed its Interim Report, which focused on the effect of the Massachusetts ERA on the laws of the Commonwealth. 1976 Senate Doc. No. 1689. A section of the report, entitled Areas Unaffected by the *378 Equal Rights Amendment, addressed some of the legal regimes that would not be affected by the adoption of the ERA. One such area was Homosexual Marriage, about which the commission
stated: An equal rights amendment will have no effect upon the allowance or denial of homosexual marriages. The equal rights amendment is not concerned with the relationship of two persons of the same sex; it only addresses those laws or public-related actions which treat persons of opposite sexes differently. The Washington Court of Appeals has already stated that the equal rights amendment to its state constitution did not afford a basis for validating homosexual marriages. In Colorado, the attorney general has likewise issued an opinion that the state equal rights amendment did not validate homosexual marriage. There are no cases which have used a state equal rights amendment to either validate or require the allowance of homosexual marriages. (Footnotes omitted.) Id. at 2122, 87 S.Ct. 1817.FN15 FN15. The Washington case cited by the commission was Singer v. Hara, 11 Wash.App. 247, 522 P.2d 1187 (1974). The views of the commission were reflected in the public debate surrounding the passage of the ERA that focused on gender equality. See, e.g., Referenda reviewed, Boston Globe, Nov. 1, 1976, at 26; Voters' guide on nine state referendum measures, Boston Herald American, Nov. 1, 1976, at 17. Claims that the ERA might be the basis for validating marriages between same-sex couples were labelled as exaggerated and unfounded. For example, before the vote, the Boston Globe published an editorial discussing and urging favorable action on the ERA. In making its case, it noted that [t]hose urging a no vote ... argue that the
Page 68
amendment would ... legitimize marriage between people of the same sex [and other changes]. In reality, the proposed amendment would require none of these things. Mass. ballot issues ... 1 Equal Rights Amendment. Boston Globe, Nov. 1, 1976, at 29. And in the aftermath of the vote, the Boston Globe heralded the electorate's acceptance of the arguments of proponents that the proposal would not result *379 in many far-reaching or threatening changes. Referendums fared poorly, Boston Globe, Nov. 4, 1976, at 29. While the court, in interpreting a constitutional amendment, is not bound to accept either the views of a legislative commission studying and reporting on the amendment's likely effects, or of public commentary and debate contemporaneous with its passage, it ought to be wary of completely disregarding what appears to be the clear intent of the people recently recorded in our constitutional history. This is particularly so where the plain wording of the amendment does not require the result it would reach. C. The marriage statute satisfies the rational basis standard. The burden of demonstrating that a statute does not satisfy the rational basis standard rests on the plaintiffs. It is a weighty one. [A] **994 reviewing court will presume a statute's validity, and make all rational inferences in favor of it.... The Legislature is not required to justify its classifications, nor provide a record or finding in support of them. (Citation omitted.) Paro v. Longwood Hosp., 373 Mass. 645, 650, 369 N.E.2d 985 (1977). The statute only need[s to] be supported by a conceivable rational basis. Fine v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 401 Mass. 639, 641, 518 N.E.2d 1151 (1988). See
Massachusetts Fed'n of Teachers v. Board of Educ., 436 Mass. 763, 771772, 767 N.E.2d 549 (2002). As this court stated in Shell Oil Co. v. Revere, 383 Mass. 682, 687688, 421 N.E.2d 1181 (1981): [I]t is not the court's function to launch an inquiry to resolve a debate which has already been settled in the legislative forum. [I]t [is] the judge's duty ... to give effect to the will of the people as expressed in the statute by their representative body. It is in this way ... that the doctrine of separation of powers is given meaning. Commonwealth v. Leis, 355 Mass. 189, 202, 243 N.E.2d 898 (1969) (Kirk, J., concurring). This respect for the legislative process means that it is not the province of the court to sit and weigh conflicting evidence supporting or opposing a legislative enactment.... Although persons challenging the constitutionality of legislation may introduce evidence in support of their *380 claim that the legislation is irrational ... they will not prevail if the question is at least debatable in view of the evidence which may have been available to the Legislature. United States v. Carolene Prods. Co., 304 U.S. 144, 154, 58 S.Ct. 778, 82 L.Ed. 1234 (1938) . The time tested wisdom of the separation of powers requires courts to avoid judicial legislation in the guise of new constructions to meet real or supposed new popular viewpoints, preserving always to the Legislature alone its proper prerogative of adjusting the statutes to changed conditions. Pielech v. Massasoit Greyhound, Inc., 423 Mass. 534, 539, 540, 668 N.E.2d 1298 (1996), cert. denied, 520
Page 69
U.S. 1131, 117 S.Ct. 1280, 137 L.Ed.2d 356 (1997), quoting Commonwealth v. A Juvenile, 368 Mass. 580, 595, 334 N.E.2d 617 (1975). In analyzing whether a statute satisfies the rational basis standard, we look to the nature of the classification embodied in the enactment, then to whether the statute serves a legitimate State purpose, and finally to whether the classification is reasonably related to the furtherance of that purpose. With this framework, we turn to the challenged statute, G.L. c. 207, which authorizes local town officials to issue licenses to couples of the opposite sex authorizing them to enter the institution of civil marriage. 1. Classification. The nature of the classification at issue is readily apparent. Opposite-sex couples can obtain a license and same-sex couples cannot. The granting of this license, and the completion of the required solemnization of the marriage, opens the door to many statutory benefits and imposes numerous responsibilities. The fact that the statute does not permit such licenses to be issued to couples of the same sex thus bars them from civil marriage. The classification is not drawn between men and women or between heterosexuals and homosexuals, any of whom can obtain a license to marry a member of the opposite sex; rather, it is drawn between same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples. 2. State purpose. The court's opinion concedes that the civil marriage statute serves legitimate State purposes, but further**995 investigation and elaboration of those purposes is both helpful and necessary. *381 Civil marriage is the institutional
mechanism by which societies have sanctioned and recognized particular family structures, and the institution of marriage has existed as one of the fundamental organizing principles of human society. See C.N. Degler, The Emergence of the Modern American Family, in The American Family in SocialHistorical Perspective 61 (3d ed.1983); A.J. Hawkins, Introduction, in Revitalizing the Institution of Marriage for the TwentyFirst Century: An Agenda for Strengthening Marriage xiv (2002); C. Lasch, Social Pathologists and the Socialization of Reproduction, in The American Family in SocialHistorical Perspective, supra at 80; W.J. O'Donnell & D.A. Jones, Marriage and Marital Alternatives 1 (1982); L. Saxton, The Individual, Marriage, and the Family 229230, 260 (1968); M.A. Schwartz & B.M. Scott, Marriages and Families: Diversity and Change 4 (1994); Wardle, Multiply and Replenish: Considering SameSex Marriage in Light of State Interests in Marital Procreation, 24 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 771, 777780 (2001); J.Q. Wilson, The Marriage Problem: How Our Culture Has Weakened Families 28, 40, 6667 (2002). Marriage has not been merely a contractual arrangement for legally defining the private relationship between two individuals (although that is certainly part of any marriage). Rather, on an institutional level, marriage is the very basis of the whole fabric of civilized society, J.P. Bishop, Commentaries on the Law of Marriage and Divorce, and Evidence in Matrimonial Suits 32 (1852), and it serves many important political, economic, social, educational, procreational, and personal functions. Paramount among its many important functions, the institution of marriage has
Page 70
systematically provided for the regulation of heterosexual behavior, brought order to the resulting procreation, and ensured a stable family structure in which children will be reared, educated, and socialized. See Milford v. Worcester, 7 Mass. 48, 52 (1810) (civil marriage intended to regulate, chasten, and refine, the intercourse between the sexes; and to multiply, preserve, and improve the species). See also P. Blumstein & P. Schwartz, American Couples: Money, Work, Sex 29 (1983); C.N. Degler, supra at 61; G. Douglas, Marriage, Cohabitation, and ParenthoodFrom Contract to Status?, in Cross Currents: Family Law and Policy in the United States and *382 England 223 (2000); S.L. Nock, The Social Costs of DeInstitutionalizing Marriage, in Revitalizing the Institution of Marriage for the TwentyFirst Century: An Agenda for Strengthening Marriage, supra at 7; L. Saxton, supra at 239240, 242; M.A. Schwartz & B.M. Scott, supra at 46; Wardle, supra at 781796; J.Q. Wilson, supra at 2332. Admittedly, heterosexual intercourse, procreation, and child care are not necessarily conjoined (particularly in the modern age of widespread effective contraception and supportive social welfare programs), but an orderly society requires some mechanism for coping with the fact that sexual intercourse commonly results in pregnancy and childbirth. The institution of marriage is that mechanism. The institution of marriage provides the important legal and normative link between heterosexual intercourse and procreation on the one hand and family responsibilities on the other. The partners in a marriage are expected to engage in exclusive sexual relations, with children the probable result and paternity presumed. See G.L. c. 209C, 6 (a man is presumed to be the father of
a child ... if he is or has been married to the mother and the child was born during the marriage, or within three hundred days after **996 the marriage was terminated by death, annulment or divorce). Whereas the relationship between mother and child is demonstratively and predictably created and recognizable through the biological process of pregnancy and childbirth, there is no corresponding process for creating a relationship between father and child.FN16 Similarly, aside from an act of heterosexual intercourse nine months prior to childbirth, there is no process for creating a relationship between a man and a woman as the parents of a particular child. The institution of marriage fills this void by formally binding the husband-father to his wife and child, and imposing on him the responsibilities of fatherhood. See J.Q. Wilson, supra at 2332. See also P. Blumstein & P. Schwartz, supra at 29; C.N. Degler, supra at 61; G. Douglas, supra at 223; S.L. Nock, supra at 7; L. Saxton, supra at 239240, 242; M.A. Schwartz & B.M. Scott, supra at 46; Wardle, supra at 781796. The alternative, a *383 society without the institution of marriage, in which heterosexual intercourse, procreation, and child care are largely disconnected processes, would be chaotic. FN16. Modern DNA testing may reveal actual paternity, but it establishes only a genetic relationship between father and child. The marital family is also the foremost setting for the education and socialization of children. Children learn about the world and their place in it primarily from those who raise them, and those children eventually grow up to exert some
Page 71
influence, great or small, positive or negative, on society. The institution of marriage encourages parents to remain committed to each other and to their children as they grow, thereby encouraging a stable venue for the education and socialization of children. See P. Blumstein & P. Schwartz, supra at 26; C.N. Degler, supra at 61; S.L. Nock, supra at 23; C. Lasch, supra at 81; M.A. Schwartz & B.M. Scott, supra at 67. More macroscopically, construction of a family through marriage also formalizes the bonds between people in an ordered and institutional manner, thereby facilitating a foundation of interconnectedness and interdependency on which more intricate stabilizing social structures might be built. See M. Grossberg, Governing the Hearth: Law and Family in NineteenthCentury America 10 (1985); C. Lasch, supra; L. Saxton, supra at 260; J.Q. Wilson, supra at 221. This court, among others, has consistently acknowledged both the institutional importance of marriage as an organizing principle of society, and the State's interest in regulating it. See French v. McAnarney, 290 Mass. 544, 546, 195 N.E. 714 (1935) (Marriage is not merely a contract between the parties. It is the foundation of the family. It is a social institution of the highest importance. The Commonwealth has a deep interest that its integrity is not jeopardized); Milford v. Worcester, 7 Mass. 48, 52 (1810) (Marriage, being essential to the peace and harmony, and to the virtues and improvements of civil society, it has been, in all well-regulated governments, among the first attentions of the civil magistrate to regulate [it]). See also Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 86 L.Ed. 1655 (1942) (Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the
very existence and survival of the [human] race); Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 211, 8 S.Ct. 723, 31 L.Ed. 654 (1888) (marriage is an institution, in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family *384 and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress); **997Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 45, 5 S.Ct. 747, 29 L.Ed. 47 (1885) (no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth ... than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman ... the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement); Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 165, 25 L.Ed. 244 (1878) (Upon [marriage] society may be said to be built, and out of its fruits spring social relations and social obligations and duties, with which government is necessarily required to deal). It is undeniably true that dramatic historical shifts in our cultural, political, and economic landscape have altered some of our traditional notions about marriage, including the interpersonal dynamics within it,FN17 the range of responsibilities required of it as an institution,FN18 and the legal environment in which it exists. FN19 Nevertheless, the institution of marriage remains the principal weave of our social fabric. See C.N. Degler, supra at 61; A.J. Hawkins, Introduction, in Revitalizing the Institution of Marriage for the TwentyFirst Century: An Agenda for Strengthening Marriage xiv (2002); C.
Page 72
Lasch, supra at 80; W.J. O'Donnell & D.A. Jones, Marriage and Marital Alternatives 1 (1982); L. Saxton, supra at 229230, 260; M.A. Schwartz & B.M. Scott, supra at 4; Wardle, supra at 777780; J.Q. Wilson, supra at 28, 40, 6667. A family defined by heterosexual marriage continues to be the most prevalent social structure into which the vast majority of children are born, nurtured, and prepared for productive participation in civil society, see Children's Living Arrangements and Characteristics: March, *385 2002, United States Census Bureau Current Population Reports at 3 (June, 2003) (in 2002, 69% of children lived with two married parents, 23% lived with their mother, 5% lived with their father, and 4% lived in households with neither parent present). FN17. The normative relationship between husband and wife has changed markedly due to the overwhelming movement toward gender equality both at home and in the marketplace. FN18. The availability of a variety of social welfare programs and public education has in many instances affected the status of the marital family as the only environment dedicated to the care, protection, and education of children. FN19. No-fault divorce has made the dissolution of marriage much easier than ever before. It is difficult to imagine a State purpose more important and legitimate than ensuring, promoting, and supporting an optimal social structure within which to bear and raise children. At the very least, the marriage statute continues to serve this
important State purpose.FN20 FN20. It is important to distinguish the individual interests in domestic relations from the social interest in the family and marriage as social institutions. Pound, Individual Interests in the Domestic Relations, 14 Mich. L.Rev. 177, 177 (1916). The court's opinion blurs this important distinction and emphasizes the personal and emotional dimensions that often accompany marriage. It is, however, only society's interest in the institution of marriage as a stabilizing social structure that justifies the statutory benefits and burdens that attend to the status provided by its laws. Personal fulfilment and public celebrations or announcements of commitment have little if anything to do with the purpose of the civil marriage laws, or with a legitimate public interest that would justify them. 3. Rational relationship. The question we must turn to next is whether the statute, construed as limiting marriage to couples of the opposite sex, remains a rational **998 way to further that purpose. Stated differently, we ask whether a conceivable rational basis exists on which the Legislature could conclude that continuing to limit the institution of civil marriage to members of the opposite sex furthers the legitimate purpose of ensuring, promoting, and supporting an optimal social structure for the bearing and raising of children. FN21 FN21. In support of its conclusion that the marriage statute does not satisfy the rational basis test, the court emphasizes that [t]he
Page 73
department has offered no evidence that forbidding marriage to people of the same sex will increase the number of couples choosing to enter into opposite-sex marriages in order to have and raise children. Ante at 334, 798 N.E.2d at 962963. This surprising statement misallocates the burden of proof in a constitutional challenge to the rational basis of a statute (see supra at 379). It is the plaintiffs who must prove that supporting and promoting one form of relationship by providing (as is pointed out) literally hundreds of benefits, could not conceivably affect the decisionmaking of anyone considering whether to bear and raise a child. The department is not required to present evidence of anything. In considering whether such a rational basis exists, we defer to the decisionmaking process of the Legislature, and must make deferential assumptions about the information that it might *386 consider and on which it may rely. See Shell Oil Co. v. Revere, 383 Mass. 682, 688, 421 N.E.2d 1181 (1981) (court considers evidence which may have been available to the Legislature [emphasis added] ); Slome v. Godley, 304 Mass. 187, 189, 23 N.E.2d 133 (1939) (any rational basis of fact that can be reasonably conceived may support legislative finding); Mutual Loan Co. v. Martell, 200 Mass. 482, 487, 86 N.E. 916 (1909), aff'd, 222 U.S. 225, 32 S.Ct. 74, 56 L.Ed. 175 (1911) ( Legislature may be supposed to have known relevant facts). We must assume that the Legislature (1) might conclude that the institution of civil marriage has successfully and continually provided this structure over
several centuries FN22; (2) might consider and credit studies that document negative consequences that too often follow children either born outside of marriage or raised in households lacking either a father or a mother figure,FN23 and scholarly commentary **999 contending that children and families *387 develop best when mothers and fathers are partners in their parenting FN24 ; and (3) would be familiar with many recent studies that variously support the proposition that children raised in intact families headed by same-sex couples fare as well on many measures as children raised in similar families headed by opposite-sex couples FN25; support the proposition that children of same-sex couples fare worse on some measures FN26; or reveal notable differences between the two groups of children that warrant further study.FN27 FN22. See C.N. Degler, The Emergence of the Modern American Family, in The American Family in SocialHistorical Perspective 61 (3d ed.1983); A.J. Hawkins, Introduction, in Revitalizing the Institution of Marriage for the TwentyFirst Century: An Agenda for Strengthening Marriage xiv (2002); C. Lasch, Social Pathologists and the Socialization of Reproduction, in The American Family in SocialHistorical Perspective, 80 (3d ed.1983); W.J. O'Donnell & D.A. Jones, The Law of Marriage and Marital Alternatives 1 (1982); L. Saxton, The Individual, Marriage and the Family 229230, 260 (1968); M.A. Schwartz & B.M. Scott, Marriages and Families: Diversity and Change 4 (1994); Wardle, Multiply and Replenish:
Page 74
Considering SameSex Marriage in Light of State Interests in Marital Procreation, 24 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 771, 777780 (2001); J.Q. Wilson, The Marriage Problem: How Our Culture has Weakened Families 28, 40, 6667 (2002). FN23. See Rodney, Behavioral Differences between African American Male Adolescents with Biological Fathers and Those Without Biological Fathers in the Home, 30 J. Black Stud. 45, 53 (1999) (AfricanAmerican juveniles who lived with their biological fathers displayed fewer behavioral problems than those whose biological fathers were absent from home); Chilton, Family Disruption, Delinquent Conduct and the Effect of Subclassification, 37 Am. Soc. Rev. 93, 95 (1972) (proportion of youth charged with juvenile offenses who were not living in husband-wife family was larger than comparable proportion of youth charged with juvenile offenses who were living in husband-wife family); Hoffmann, A National Portrait of Family Structure and Adolescent Drug Use, 60 J. Marriage & Fam. 633 (1998) (children from households with both mother and father reported relatively low use of drugs, whereas children from households without their natural mothers and from other family type households had highest prevalence of drug use). See also D. Blankenhorn, Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem 25 (1995). FN24. H.B. Biller & J.L. Kimpton,
The Father and the SchoolAged Child, in The Role of The Father in Child Development 143 (3d ed.1997); H.B. Biller, Fathers and Families: Paternal Factors in Child Development 13 (1993); Lynne Marie Kohm, The Homosexual Union: Should Gay and Lesbian Partnerships be Granted the Same Status as Marriage? 22 J. Contemp. L. 51, 61 & nn. 53, 54 (1996) ([s]tatistics continue to show that the most stable family for children to grow up in is that consisting of a father and a mother). FN25. See, e.g., Patterson, Family Relationships of Lesbians and Gay Men, 62 J. Marriage & Fam. 1052, 1060, 10641065 (2000) (concluding that there are no significant differences between children of same-sex parents and children of heterosexual parents in aspects of personal development). FN26. See, e.g., Cameron, Homosexual Parents, 31 Adolescence 757, 770774 (1996) (concluding results of limited study consonant with notion that children raised by homosexuals disproportionately experience emotional disturbance and sexual victimization). FN27. See, e.g., Stacey, (How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?, 66 Amer. Soc. Rev. 159, 172, 176179 (2001) (finding significant statistical differences in parenting practices, gender roles, sexual behavior but noting that heterosexism and political implications have constrained research). See also
Page 75
Coleman, Reinvestigating Remarriage: Another Decade of Progress, 62 J. Marriage & Fam. 1288 (2000) (concluding that future studies of impact of divorce and remarriage on children should focus on nontraditional stepfamilies, particularly same-sex couples with children, because impact of such arrangements have been overlooked in other studies). We must also assume that the Legislature would be aware of the critiques of the methodologies used in virtually all of the comparative studies of children raised in these different environments, cautioning that the sampling populations are not representative, that the observation periods are too limited in time,FN28 that the empirical data are unreliable, and that the *388 hypotheses are too infused with political or agenda driven bias. See, e.g., R. Lerner & A.K. Nagai, No Basis: What the Studies Don't Tell Us About SameSex Parenting, Marriage Law Project (Jan.2001) (criticizing forty-nine studies on same-sex parentingat least twenty-six of which were cited by amici in this caseas suffering from flaws in formulation of hypotheses, use of experimental controls, use of measurements, sampling and statistical testing, and finding false negatives); Stacey, (How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter, 66 Am. Soc. Rev. 159, 159166 (2001) (highlighting problems with sampling pools, lack of longitudinal studies, and political hypotheses). FN28. In Massachusetts, for example, the State's adoption laws were only recently interpreted to permit adoption by same-sex partners. Adoption of Tammy, 416
Mass. 205, 619 N.E.2d 315 (1993). It is fair to assume that most of the children affected by that ruling, who properly would be the subject of study in their teenage and adult years, are still only children today. Taking all of this available information into account, the Legislature could rationally conclude that a family environment with married opposite-sex parents remains **1000 the optimal social structure in which to bear children, and that the raising of children by same-sex couples, who by definition cannot be the two sole biological parents of a child and cannot provide children with a parental authority figure of each gender,FN29 presents an alternative structure for child rearing that has not yet proved itself beyond reasonable scientific dispute to be as optimal as the biologically based marriage norm. See Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194, 222, 744 A.2d 864 (1999) (conceivable that the Legislature could conclude that opposite-sex partners offer advantages in th[e] area [of child rearing], although ... experts disagree and the answer is decidedly uncertain). Cf. Marcoux v. Attorney Gen., 375 Mass. 63, 65, 375 N.E.2d 688 (1978). Working from the assumption that a recognition of same-sex marriages will increase the number of children experiencing this alternative, the Legislature *389 could conceivably conclude that declining to recognize samesex marriages remains prudent until empirical questions about its impact on the upbringing of children are resolved.FN30 FN29. This family structure raises the prospect of children lacking any parent of their own gender. For example, a boy raised by two lesbians as his parents has no male
Page 76
parent. Contrary to the suggestion that concerns about such a family arrangement is based on stereotypical views about the differences between sexes, ante at 337 n. 28, 798 N.E.2d at 965, concern about such an arrangement remains rational. It is, for example, rational to posit that the child himself might invoke gender as a justification for the view that neither of his parents understands him, or that they don't know what he is going through, particularly if his disagreement or dissatisfaction involves some issue pertaining to sex. Given that same-sex couples raising children are a very recent phenomenon, the ramifications of an adolescent child's having two parents but not one of his or her own gender have yet to be fully realized and cannot yet even be tested in significant numbers. But see note 25, supra, regarding studies of children raised without parents of each gender. FN30. The same could be true of any other potentially promising but recent innovation in the relationships of persons raising children. The fact that the Commonwealth currently allows same-sex couples to adopt, see Adoption of Tammy, 416 Mass. 205, 619 N.E.2d 315 (1993), does not affect the rationality of this conclusion. The eligibility of a child for adoption presupposes that at least one of the child's biological parents is unable or unwilling, for some reason, to participate in raising the child. In that sense, society has lost the optimal setting in which to raise that
childit is simply not available. In these circumstances, the principal and overriding consideration is the best interests of the child, considering his or her unique circumstances and the options that are available for that child. The objective is an individualized determination of the best environment for a particular child, where the normative social structurea home with both the child's biological father and motheris not an option. That such a focused determination may lead to the approval of a same-sex couple's adoption of a child does not mean that it would be irrational for a legislator, in fashioning statutory laws that cannot make such individualized determinations, to conclude generally that being raised by a same-sex couple has not yet been shown to be the absolute equivalent of being raised by one's married biological parents. That the State does not preclude different types of families from raising children does not mean that it must view them all as equally optimal and equally deserving of State endorsement and support.FN31 For example,**1001 single persons are allowed to adopt children, but the fact that the Legislature permits singleparent *390 adoption does not mean that it has endorsed single parenthood as an optimal setting in which to raise children or views it as the equivalent of being raised by both of one's biological parents.FN32 The same holds true with respect to samesex couplesthe fact that they may adopt children means only that the Legislature has concluded that they may provide an acceptable setting in which to raise children who cannot be raised by both of their biological parents. The Legislature may rationally permit adoption by samesex couples yet harbor reservations as to whether parenthood by same-sex couples
Page 77
should be affirmatively encouraged to the same extent as parenthood by the heterosexual couple whose union produced the child.FN33 FN31. The plaintiffs also argue that because the State requires insurance companies to provide coverage for diagnosing and treating infertility unrestricted to those who are married, G.L. c. 175, 47H, limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples is contrary to its currently stated public policy and, therefore, no longer rational. This argument is not persuasive. The fact that the Legislature has seen fit to require that health insurers cover the medical condition of infertility, for all subscribers, is not inconsistent with the State's policy of encouraging and endorsing heterosexual marriage as the optimum structure in which to bear and raise children. There is no rule that requires the State to limit every law bearing on birth and child rearing to the confines of heterosexual marriage in order to vindicate its policy of supporting that structure as optimal. Just as the insurance laws relating to infertility coverage cannot be said to be a State endorsement of childbirth out of wedlock, they cannot be said to represent an abandonment of the State's policy regarding a preference that children be born into and raised in the context of heterosexual marriage. FN32. Indeed, just recently, this court reasoned that the Legislature could permissibly conclude that children being raised by single
parents may be at heightened risk for certain kinds of harm when compared with children of so-called intact families, because such children may not have or be able to draw on the resources of two parents when having to cope with some form of loss. Blixt v. Blixt, 437 Mass. 649, 663, 664, 774 N.E.2d 1052 (2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1189, 123 S.Ct. 1259, 154 L.Ed.2d 1022 (2003). In that case, the differences between single parents and parents raising a child together sufficed to justify subjecting single parents to the grandparent visitation statute, G.L. c. 119, 39D. Id. at 662664, 774 N.E.2d 1052. Because the statute implicated fundamental parental rights, its classifications had to survive strict scrutiny, id. at 660, 774 N.E.2d 1052, not the mere rational basis test at issue in today's opinion. The fact that single people can adopt children did not insulate them from differential treatment with respect to their parental rights. FN33. Similarly, while the fact that our laws have evolved to include a strong affirmative policy against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, have decriminalized intimate adult conduct, and have abolished the legal distinctions between marital and nonmarital children, may well be a reason to celebrate a more open and humane society, they ought not be the basis on which to conclude that there is no longer a rational basis for the current marriage law. See ante at 332333, 798 N.E.2d at 962. To conclude the
Page 78
latter based on the former threatens the process of social reform in a democratic society. States must be free to experiment in the realm of social and civil relations, incrementally and without concern that a step or two in one direction will determine the outcome of the experiment as a matter of law. If they are not, those who argue slippery slope will have more ammunition than ever to resist any effort at progressive change or social experimentation, and will be able to put the lie to the arguments of the proponents of such efforts, that an incremental step forward does not preordain a result which neither the people nor their elected representatives may yet be prepared to accept. In addition, the Legislature could conclude that redefining the *391 institution of marriage to permit same-sex couples to marry would impair the State's interest in promoting and supporting heterosexual marriage as the social institution that it has determined best normalizes, stabilizes, and links the acts of procreation and child **1002 rearing. While the plaintiffs argue that they only want to take part in the same stabilizing institution, the Legislature conceivably could conclude that permitting their participation would have the unintended effect of undermining to some degree marriage's ability to serve its social purpose. See Commonwealth v. Stowell, 389 Mass. 171, 175, 449 N.E.2d 357 (1983) (given State's broad concern with institution of marriage, it has legitimate interest in prohibiting conduct which may threaten that institution).
So long as marriage is limited to opposite-sex couples who can at least theoretically procreate, society is able to communicate a consistent message to its citizens that marriage is a (normatively) necessary part of their procreative endeavor; that if they are to procreate, then society has endorsed the institution of marriage as the environment for it and for the subsequent rearing of their children; and that benefits are available explicitly to create a supportive and conducive atmosphere for those purposes. If society proceeds similarly to recognize marriages between same-sex couples who cannot procreate, it could be perceived as an abandonment of this claim, and might result in the mistaken view that civil marriage has little to do with procreation: just as the potential of procreation would not be necessary for a marriage to be valid, marriage would not be necessary for optimal procreation and child rearing to occur.FN34 In essence, the Legislature could conclude that the consequence *392 of such a policy shift would be a diminution in society's ability to steer the acts of procreation and child rearing into their most optimal setting.FN35 **1003 HallOmar Baking Co. v. Commissioner of Labor & Indus., 344 Mass. 695, 700, 184 N.E.2d 344 (1962) (Legislative classification is valid if it is rational and bears some relationship to the object intended to be accomplished [emphasis added] ). FN34. The court contends that the exclusive and permanent commitment of the marriage partnership rather than the begetting of children is the sine qua non of civil marriage, ante at 332, 798 N.E.2d at 961962, and that the marriage is procreation argument
Page 79
singles out the one unbridgeable difference between same-sex and opposite-sex couples, and transforms that difference into the essence of legal marriage. Ante at 333, 798 N.E.2d at 962. The court has it backward. Civil marriage is the product of society's critical need to manage procreation as the inevitable consequence of intercourse between members of the opposite sex. Procreation has always been at the root of marriage and the reasons for its existence as a social institution. Its structure, one man and one woman committed for life, reflects society's judgment as how optimally to manage procreation and the resultant child rearing. The court, in attempting to divorce procreation from marriage, transforms the form of the structure into its purpose. In doing so, it turns history on its head. The court compounds its error by likening the marriage statute to Colorado's Amendment 2, which was struck by the United States Supreme Court in Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 633, 116 S.Ct. 1620, 134 L.Ed.2d 855 (1996). That amendment repealed all Colorado laws and ordinances that barred discrimination against homosexuals, and prohibited any governmental entity from adopting similar statutes. The amendment withdrew from homosexuals, but no others, legal protection from a broad range of injuries caused by private and governmental discrimination, imposing a broad and undifferentiated disability on a
single named group. Id. at 632, 116 S.Ct. 1620. As the Court noted, its sheer breadth seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class it affects. Id. The comparison to the Massachusetts marriage statute, which limits the institution of marriage (created to manage procreation) to oppositesex couples who can theoretically procreate, is completely inapposite. FN35. Although the marriage statute is overinclusive because it comprehends within its scope infertile or voluntarily nonreproductive opposite-sex couples, this overinclusiveness does not make the statute constitutionally infirm. See Massachusetts Fed'n of Teachers v. Board of Educ., 436 Mass. 763, 778, 767 N.E.2d 549 (2002) (Some degree of overinclusiveness or underinclusiveness is constitutionally permissible ...). The overinclusiveness present here is constitutionally permissible because the Commonwealth has chosen, reasonably, not to test every prospective married couple for fertility and not to demand of fertile prospective married couples whether or not they will procreate. It is satisfied, rather, to allow every couple whose biological opposition makes procreation theoretically possible to join the institution. The court recognizes this concern, but brushes it aside with the assumption that permitting same-sex couples to marry will not diminish the validity or dignity of
Page 80
opposite-sex marriage, ante at 337, 798 N.E.2d at 965, and that we have no doubt that marriage will continue to be a vibrant and revered institution. Ante at 340, 798 N.E.2d at 966967. Whether the court is correct in its assumption is irrelevant. What is relevant is that such predicting is not the business of the courts. A rational Legislature, given the evidence, could conceivably come to a different conclusion, or could at least *393 harbor rational concerns about possible unintended consequences of a dramatic redefinition of marriage.FN36 FN36. Concerns about such unintended consequences cannot be dismissed as fanciful or far-fetched. Legislative actions taken in the 1950's and 1960's in areas as widely arrayed as domestic relations law and welfare legislation have had significant unintended adverse consequences in subsequent decades including the dramatic increase in children born out of wedlock, and the destabilization of the institution of marriage. See Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States 194099, National Center for Health Statistics, 48 Nat'l Vital Stat. Reps. at 2 (Oct.2000) (nonmarital childbirths increased from 3.8% of annual births in 1940 to 33% in 1999); M.D. Bramlett, Cohabitation, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the United States, National Center for Health Statistics, Vital & Health Stat. at 45 (July 2002) (due to higher divorce rates and postponement of marriage, proportion of people's lives spent in marriage declined significantly during later half of Twentieth Century).
There is no question that many samesex couples are capable of being good parents, and should be (and are) permitted to be so. The policy question that a legislator must resolve is a different one, and turns on an assessment of whether the marriage structure proposed by the plaintiffs will, over time, if endorsed and supported by the State, prove to be as stable and successful a model as the one that has formed a cornerstone of our society since colonial times, or prove to be less than optimal, and result in consequences, perhaps now unforeseen, adverse to the State's legitimate interest in promoting and supporting the best possible social structure in which children should be born and raised. Given the critical importance of civil marriage as an organizing and stabilizing institution of society, it is eminently rational for the Legislature to postpone making fundamental changes to it until such time as there is unanimous scientific evidence, or popular consensus, or both, that such changes can safely be made.FN37 FN37. [T]he State retains wide latitude to decide the manner in which it will allocate benefits. Moe v. Secretary of Admin. & Fin., 382 Mass. 629, 652, 417 N.E.2d 387 (1981). To the extent that the Legislature concludes that one form of social relationship is more optimal than another for the bearing and raising of children, it is free to promote and support the one and not the other, so long as its conclusion is rational, and does not discriminatorily burden the exercise of a fundamental right. Id. Cf. Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173, 192193, 111 S.Ct. 1759, 114 L.Ed.2d 233 (1991) (Government can, without
Page 81
violating the Constitution, selectively fund a program to encourage certain activities it believes to be in the public interest, without at the same time funding an alternative program which seeks to deal with the problems in another way). There is no reason to believe that legislative processes are *394 inadequate to effectuate legal changes in response to evolving **1004 evidence, social values, and views of fairness on the subject of same-sex relationships.FN38 Deliberate consideration of, and incremental responses to rapidly evolving scientific and social understanding is the norm of the political processthat it may seem painfully slow to those who are already persuaded by the arguments in favor of change is not a sufficient basis to conclude that the processes are constitutionally infirm. See, e.g., Massachusetts Fed'n of Teachers v. Board of Educ., 436 Mass. 763, 778, 767 N.E.2d 549 (2002); Mobil Oil v. Attorney Gen., 361 Mass. 401, 417, 280 N.E.2d 406 (1972) (Legislature may proceed piecemeal in addressing perceived injustices or problems). The advancement of the rights, privileges, and protections afforded to homosexual members of our community in the last three decades has been significant, and there is no reason to believe that that evolution will not continue. Changes of attitude in the civic, social, and professional communities have been even more profound. Thirty years ago, The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, the seminal handbook of the American Psychiatric Association, still listed homosexuality as a mental disorder. Today, the Massachusetts Psychiatric Society, the American Psychoanalytic Association, and many other psychiatric,
psychological, and social science organizations have joined in an amicus brief on behalf of the plaintiffs' cause. A body of experience and evidence has provided the basis for change, and that body continues to mount. The Legislature is the appropriate branch, both constitutionally and practically, to consider and respond to it. It is not enough that we as Justices might be personally of the view that we have learned enough to decide what is best. So long as the question is at all debatable, it must be the Legislature that decides. The marriage statute thus meets the requirements of the *395 rational basis test. Accord Standhardt v. Superior Court, 77 P.3d 451 (Ariz.Ct.App.2003) (marriage statutes rationally related to State's legitimate interest in encouraging procreation and child rearing within marriage); Baker v. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310, 313, 191 N.W.2d 185 (1971) (equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, like the due process clause, is not offended by the state's classification of persons authorized to marry); Singer v. Hara, 11 Wash.App. 247, 262263, 522 P.2d 1187 (1974) (There can be no doubt that there exists a rational basis for the state to limit the definition of marriage to exclude same-sex relationships). FN38. Legislatures in many parts of the country continue to consider various means of affording samesex couples the types of benefits and legal structures that married couples enjoy. For example, in 1999 the California Legislature established the first Statewide domestic partner registry in the nation, and in each of the years 2001, 2002, and 2003 substantially expanded the rights and benefits accruing to registered partners. Cal.
Page 82
Fam.Code 297 et seq. (West Supp.2003). See also comments of Massachusetts Senate President Robert Travaglini to the effect that he intends to bring civil union legislation to the floor of the Senate for a vote. Mass. Senate Eyes Civil Unions: Move Comes as SJC Mulls Gay Marriages, Boston Globe, Sept. 7, 2003, at A1. D. Conclusion. While [t]he Massachusetts Constitution protects matters of personal liberty against government incursion as zealously, and often more so, than does the Federal Constitution, ante at 328, 798 N.E.2d at 958959, this case is not about government intrusions into matters of personal liberty. It is not about the rights of same-sex couples to choose to live together, or to be intimate with each other, or to adopt and raise children together. It is about whether the State must endorse and support their choices by changing the institution of civil marriage to make its benefits,**1005 obligations, and responsibilities applicable to them. While the courageous efforts of many have resulted in increased dignity, rights, and respect for gay and lesbian members of our community, the issue presented here is a profound one, deeply rooted in social policy, that must, for now, be the subject of legislative not judicial action. Mass.,2003. Goodridge v. Department of Public Health 440 Mass. 309, 798 N.E.2d 941 Briefs and Other Related Documents (Back to top) 2003 WL 23282293 (Appellate Brief) Brief of Amici Curiae, Massachusetts Citizens Alliance and Massachusetts
Citizens for Marriage in Support of the Appellees. (Nov. 13, 2003) Original Image of this Document (PDF) 2002 WL 32364764 (Appellate Brief) Brief Amicus Curiae on Behalf of Professors and Advisors of Law: Jos e Mart in de Agar, Matthijs de Blois, Javier Canosa, Ernest Caparros, Alfonso Mart inez-Echevarr ia Y Garc ia de Due nas, Jos e Mar ia Blanco Fern andez, Juan G. Navarro Floria, A. K. Koekkoek, Angel L opez-Sidro L opez, Scott Loveless, Rafael Palomino, Patrick Quirk, Joaqu in Mantec on Sancho, Javier Martinez-Torron, Jacqueline Vaklush Toleva In Support of Defendants-Appellees (Dec. 20, 2002) Original Image of this Document with Appendix (PDF) 2002 WL 32364768 (Appellate Brief) Brief Amicus Curiae of the National Legal Foundation In support of DefendantsAppellees. Supporting affirmance. (Dec. 20, 2002) Original Image of this Document (PDF) 2002 WL 32364770 (Appellate Brief) Brief of Amicus Curiae Marriage Law Project (Dec. 20, 2002) Original Image of this Document (PDF) 2002 WL 32364774 (Appellate Brief) Brief in Support of Appellee of Amicus Curiae Joseph Ureneck (Dec. 20, 2002) Original Image of this Document (PDF) 2002 WL 32364760 (Appellate Brief) Brief of Amici Curiae Acudath Israel of America and The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America in Support of Defendants-Appellees (Dec. 19, 2002) Original Image of this Document (PDF) 2002 WL 32364773 (Appellate Brief) Brief of Amici Curiae of the States of Utah, Nebraska and South Dakota (Dec. 19, 2002) Original Image of this Document (PDF) 2002 WL 32364761 (Appellate Brief)
Page 83
Brief of the Amici Curiae Professors of Remedies, Constitutional Law and Litigation, Libby Adler, Marie Ashe, Michael Avery, Jack M. Beermann, Patricia A. Cain, Erwin Chemerinsky, Martha F. Davis, Kate Nace Day, Anthony Paul Farley, Taylor Flynn, Leo ra Harpaz, Jean C. Love, Bruce K. Miller, Russell Pearce, William Rubenstein, Elizabeth Spahn, Robert Volk, Timothy Wilton, Arthur D. Wolf, and Larry Yackle (Nov. 8, 2002) Original Image of this Document with Appendix (PDF) 2002 WL 32364769 (Appellate Brief) Brief Amici Curiae the Honorable Philip Travis (Bristol), Edward Connolly (Middlesex), Guy Glodis (Second Worcester), James Miceli (Middlesex), Elizabeth Poirier (North Attleborough) (Nov. 8, 2002) Original Image of this Document (PDF) 2002 WL 32364777 (Appellate Brief) Brief of Amicus Curiae Free Market Foundation (Nov. 8, 2002) Original Image of this Document (PDF) 2002 WL 32364782 (Appellate Brief) Brief of Amicus Curiae Professors of Expression and Constitutional Law: William E. Adams, William D. Araiza, Gilbert Carrasco, David Cole, Mary L. Dudziak, William N. Eskridge, Jr., Marie Failinger, Eric M. Freedman, Steven G. Gey, Neil Gotanda, Emil y Hartigan, Nan D. Hunter and Jane Scarborough; and The Freedom to Marry Coalition of Massachusetts, The Freedom to Marry Foundation, The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Political Alliance of Western Massachusetts, The Massachusetts Gay & Lesb (Nov. 8, 2002) Original Image of this Document with Appendix (PDF) SJC-08860 (Docket) (Sep. 24, 2002)
Judges and Attorneys(Back to top) Judges | Attorneys Judges Connolly, Hon. Thomas Edward Litigation History Report Reversal Report | Profiler | Judicial
Cordy, Hon. Robert J. Commonwealth of Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Litigation History Report | Judicial Reversal Report | Judicial Expert Challenge Report | Profiler Sosman, Hon. Martha Browning Commonwealth of Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Litigation History Report | Judicial Reversal Report | Profiler Spina, Hon. Francis Xavier Commonwealth of Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Litigation History Report | Judicial Reversal Report | Judicial Expert Challenge Report | Profiler Attorneys
Page 84
Other Attorneys Ash, Robert W. American Center For Law & Justice Virginia Beach, Virginia 23467 Litigation History Report | Profiler Avila, Daniel National Legal Center For The Medically Dependent & Disabled, Inc. Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 Litigation History Report | Profiler Batt, Kevin D. Anderson & Kreiger LLP Cambridge, Massachusetts 02141 Litigation History Report | Profiler Biser, Mordechai Agudath Israel of America New York, New York 10004 Litigation History Report | Profiler Bonauto, Mary Lisa Current Firm Information Unknown Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Litigation History Report | Profiler Brousseau, Justine H. Kimball Brousseau LLP Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Litigation History Report | Profiler Burnett, Brent A. State of Utah, Office of the Attorney General Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-2320 Litigation History Report | Profiler Buseck, Gary D. Gary D. Buseck Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Litigation History Report | Profiler Caprera, Robert G. Caprera & Caprera Southbridge, Massachusetts 01550 Litigation History Report | Profiler
Cleary, Philip E. Philip E. Cleary West Roxbury, Massachusetts 02132 Litigation History Report | Profiler Collett, Teresa S. Current Firm Information Unknown Houston, Texas 77002 Litigation History Report | Profiler Cooper, Leslie New York Civil Liberties Union New York, New York 10004 Litigation History Report | Profiler Darling, Chester Chester Darling Boston, Massachusetts 02116 Litigation History Report | Profiler Davidson, Jon W. Lambda Legal New York, New York 10005 Litigation History Report | Profiler Elmore, Kenneth Current Firm Information Unknown Boston, Massachusetts 02210-2261 Litigation History Report | Profiler Emmons, Bertin C. Banco Santander S.A. - Santander Holdings USA, Inc. - Santander Bank N.A. (Branch Office) Salem, New Hampshire 03079 Litigation History Report | Profiler Glasson, Lucy Fowler U.S. Department of Education - Office for Civil Rights Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107 Litigation History Report | Profiler Kimball, Nina Joan Kimball Brousseau LLP Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Litigation History Report | Profiler
Page 85
Knudsen, James R Whittenberg Knudsen, LLP Wakefield, Massachusetts 01880 Litigation History Report | Profiler Langdon, David R Current Firm Information Unknown Cincinnati, Ohio 45208 Litigation History Report | Profiler Lapp, Daryl J. Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP Boston, Massachusetts 02199-7613 Litigation History Report | Profiler Mason, Hon. Mark D. Current Firm Information Unknown Unknown State Litigation History Report | Profiler Mirenda, Anthony D. Foley Hoag LLP Boston, Massachusetts 02210-2600 Litigation History Report | Profiler Nadel, Heidi A. Todd & Weld LLP Boston, Massachusetts 02109 Litigation History Report | Profiler Newhouse, Martin J. Esquire New England Legal Foundation Boston, Massachusetts 02111 Litigation History Report | Profiler Parsigian, Kenneth J. Latham & Watkins LLP Boston, Massachusetts 02116 Litigation History Report | Profiler Rae, Lisa Ellis Boxer & Blake Springfield, Vermont 05156 Litigation History Report | Profiler Reed, Stephen W. Reed & Brown LLP
Pasadena, California 91101 Litigation History Report | Profiler Rose, Carol V. Current Firm Information Unknown Boston, Massachusetts 02110-2600 Litigation History Report | Profiler Schaeffer, Judith E. People for the American Way Foundation Washington, District of Columbia 20011 Litigation History Report | Profiler Shafer, Jeffrey A. Current Firm Information Unknown Cincinnati, Ohio 45241 Litigation History Report | Profiler Shapiro, Jonathan Stern Shapiro Weissberg & Garin LLP Boston, Massachusetts 02114-2022 Litigation History Report | Profiler Shurtleff, Mark L. State of Utah, Office of the Attorney General Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-2320 Litigation History Report | Profiler Squires-Lee, Debra Sherin and Lodgen LLP Boston, Massachusetts 02110 Litigation History Report | Profiler Swift, Corin R. Sidley Austin LLP Chicago, Illinois 60603 Litigation History Report | Profiler Vrabel, Joseph P.J. Current Firm Information Unknown Framingham, Massachusetts 01702 Litigation History Report | Profiler Wunsch, Sarah American Civil Massachusetts Liberties Union of
Page 86
Boston, Massachusetts 02110 Litigation History Report | Profiler Zupcofska, Peter F. Burns & Levinson LLP Boston, Massachusetts 02110-1624 Litigation History Report | Profiler Zwiebel, David Agudath Israel of America New York, New York 10004 Litigation History Report | Profiler END OF DOCUMENT
Date of Printing: Jan 29, 2014 KEYCITE Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309, 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass., Nov 18, 2003) (NO. SJC-08860) History Direct History 1 Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 14 Mass.L.Rptr. 591, 2002 WL 1299135 (Mass.Super. May 07, 2002) (NO. 20011647A) Order Entered by 2 GOODRIDGE et al, v. DEPT OF PUBLIC HEALTH et al., 2002 WL 34085883 (Trial Order) (Mass.Super. May 08, 2002) (NO. SUCV2001-01647) Vacated and Remanded by 3 Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309, 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. Nov 18, 2003) (NO. SJC-08860) On Remand to 4 Hillary GOODRIDGE and Julie Goodridge, David Wilson and Robert Compton, Michael Horgan and Edward Balmelli, Maureen Brodoff and Ellen Wade, Gary Chalmers and Richard Linnell, Heidi Norton and Gina Smith, and Gloria Bailey and Linda Davies, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, and Dr. Howard Koh, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Department of Public Health., 2004 WL 5064000 (Trial Order) (Mass.Super. May 17, 2004) (NO. 01-1647-A) Negative Citing References (U.S.A.) Disagreed With by 5 Hernandez v. Robles, 26 A.D.3d 98, 805 N.Y.S.2d 354, 2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 09436 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept. Dec 08, 2005) (NO. 103434/04, 6598, 6599) HN: 31,32,34 (N.E.2d) 6 Andersen v. King County, 158 Wash.2d 1, 138 P.3d 963 (Wash. Jul 26, 2006) (NO. 75934-1, 75956-1) HN: 15,31,34 (N.E.2d) Declined to Follow by 7 Morrison v. Sadler, 821 N.E.2d 15 (Ind.App. Jan 20, 2005) (NO. 49A02-0305-CV-447) HN: 31,33 (N.E.2d) 8 Seymour v. Holcomb, 7 Misc.3d 530, 790 N.Y.S.2d 858, 2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 25070 (N.Y.Sup. Feb 23, 2005) (NO. 2004-0458) 9 Lewis v. Harris, 378 N.J.Super. 168, 875 A.2d 259 (N.J.Super.A.D. Jun 14, 2005)
=>
2014 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.
(NO. A-2244-03T5) HN: 31,32,36 (N.E.2d) 10 In re Marriage Cases, 143 Cal.App.4th 873, 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 675, 06 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9451, 2006 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,485 (Cal.App. 1 Dist. Oct 05, 2006) (NO. A110449, A110450, A110451, A110463, A110651, A110652), as modified on denial of rehearing (Nov 06, 2006) HN: 15,36,42 (N.E.2d) 11 Conaway v. Deane, 401 Md. 219, 932 A.2d 571 (Md. Sep 18, 2007) (NO. 44 SEPT.TERM 2006) 12 Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, 289 Conn. 135, 957 A.2d 407 (Conn. Oct 28, 2008) (NO. 17716) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) Disagreement Recognized by 13 Cote-Whitacre v. Department of Public Health, 446 Mass. 350, 844 N.E.2d 623 (Mass. Mar 30, 2006) (NO. SJC-09436) HN: 15,34,36 (N.E.2d) Distinguished by 14 In re Kandu, 315 B.R. 123, Bankr. L. Rep. P 80,145 (Bankr.W.D.Wash. Aug 17, 2004) (NO. 03-51312) 15 In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th 757, 183 P.3d 384, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 08 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5820, 2008 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7079 (Cal. May 15, 2008) (NO. S147999), rehearing denied (Jun 04, 2008) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) Related References 16 HILLARY GOODRIDGE, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, et al., Defendants., 2004 WL 5270803 (Trial Order) (Mass.Super. May 12, 2004) (NO. 01-1647-A) Court Documents Appellate Court Documents (U.S.A.) Mass. Appellate Briefs 17 Hillary GOODRIDGE, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, et al., Defendants-Appellees., 2002 WL 32364761 (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Nov. 8, 2002) Brief of the Amici Curiae Professors of Remedies, Constitutional Law and Litigation, Libby Adler, Marie Ashe, Michael Avery, Jack M. Beermann, Patricia A. Cain, Erwin Chemerinsky, Martha F. Davis, Kat (NO. SJC-08860) 18 Hillary GOODRIDGE, Julie Goodridge, David Wilson, Robert Compton, Michael Horgan, Edward Balmelli, Maureen Brodoff, Ellen Wade, Gary Chalmers, Richard Linnell, Heidi Horton, Gina Smith, Gloria Bailey and Linda Davies, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH and Howard Koh, Commissioner, 2002 WL 32364769 (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Nov. 8, 2002) Brief Amici Curiae the Honorable Philip Travis (Bristol), Edward
Connolly (Middlesex), Guy Glodis (Second Worcester), James Miceli (Middlesex), Elizabeth Poirier (North Attleborough) (NO. SJC-08860) 19 Hillary GOODRIDGE and Julie Goodridge, David Wilson and Robert Compton, Michael Horgan and Edward Balmelli, Maureen Brodoff and Ellen Wade, Gary Chalmers and Richard Linnell, Heidi Norton and Gina Smith, and Gloria Bailey and Linda Daivies, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, Dr., 2002 WL 32364777 (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Nov. 8, 2002) Brief of Amicus Curiae Free Market Foundation (NO. SJC-08860) 20 Hilary GOODRIDGE, et al., Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, et al., Defendants - Appellees., 2002 WL 32364782 (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Nov. 8, 2002) Brief of Amicus Curiae Professors of Expression and Constitutional Law: William E. Adams, William D. Araiza, Gilbert Carrasco, David Cole, Mary L. Dudziak, William N. Eskridge, Jr., Marie Failinger, E (NO. SJC-08860) 21 Hilary GOODRIDGE, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, et al., Defendants-Appellees., 2002 WL 32364760 (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Dec. 19, 2002) Brief of Amici Curiae Acudath Israel of America and The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America in Support of Defendants-Appellees (NO. SJC-08860) 22 Hilary GOODRIDGE, Julie Goodridge, David Wilson Robert Compton, Michael Horgan, Edward Balmelli, Maureen Brodoff, Ellen Wade, Gary Chambers, Richard Linnell, Heidi Norton, Gina Smith, Gloria Bailey and Linda Davies, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH and Howard Koh, Commissioner, 2002 WL 32364773 (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Dec. 19, 2002) Brief of Amici Curiae of the States of Utah, Nebraska and South Dakota (NO. SJC-08860) 23 Hillary GOODRIDGE, Julie Goodridge, David Wilson, Robert Compton, Michael Horgan, Edward Balmelli, Maureen Brodoff, Ellen Wade, Gary Chalmers, Richard Linnell, Heidi Horton, Gina Smith, Gloria Bailey and Linda Davies, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH and HOWARD KOH, COMMISSIONER, 2002 WL 32364764 (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Dec. 20, 2002) Brief Amicus Curiae on Behalf of Professors and Advisors of Law: Jos e Mart in de Agar, Matthijs de Blois, Javier Canosa, Ernest Caparros, Alfonso Mart inez-Echevarr ia Y Garc ia de Due nas, Jos e Mar (NO. SJC-08860) 24 Hillary GOODRIDGE, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, et al., Defendants-Appellees., 2002 WL 32364768 (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Dec. 20, 2002) Brief Amicus Curiae of the National Legal Foundation In support of Defendants-Appellees. Supporting affirmance. (NO. SJC-08860) 25 Hillary GOODRIDGE, Julie Goodridge, David Wilson, Robert Compton, Michael Horgan, Edward Balmelli, Maureen Brodoff, Ellen Wade, Gary Chalmers, Richard Linnell, Heidi Norton, Gina Smith, Gloria Bailey and Linda
Davies, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH and Howard Koh, Commissioner, 2002 WL 32364770 (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Dec. 20, 2002) Brief of Amicus Curiae Marriage Law Project (NO. SJC-08860) 26 Hillary GOODRIDGE and Julie Goodridge et al., Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT FOF PUBLIC HEALTH et al., Appellee., 2002 WL 32364774 (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Dec. 20, 2002) Brief in Support of Appellee of Amicus Curiae Joseph Ureneck (NO. SJC-08860) 27 Hillary GOODRIDGE and Julie Goodridge, David Wilson and Robert Compton, Michael Horgan and Edward Belmelli, Maureen Brodoff and Ellen Wade, Gary Chalmers and Richard Linnell, Heidinorton and Gina Smith, and Gloria Bailey and Linda Davies, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, and Dr, 2003 WL 23282293 (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Nov. 13, 2003) Brief of Amici Curiae, Massachusetts Citizens Alliance and Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage in Support of the Appellees. (NO. SJC-08860) Trial Court Documents (U.S.A.) Mass.Super. Trial Pleadings 28 Hillary GOODRIDGE and Julie Goodridge, David Wilson and Robert Compton, Michael Horgan and Edward Balmelli, Maureen Brodoff and Ellen Wade, Gary Chalmers and Richard Linnell, Heidi Norton and Gina Smith, and Gloria Bailey and Linda Davies, Plaintiffs, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, and Dr. Howard K, 2001 WL 34825143 (Trial Pleading) (Mass.Super. 2001) Verified Complaint (NO. 01-1647A) 29 Hillary GOODRIDGE and Julie Goodridge, David Wilson and Robert Compton, Michael Horgan and Edward Balmelli, Maureen Brodoff and Ellen Wade, Gary Chalmers and Richard Linnell, Heidi Norton and Gina Smith, and Gloria Bailey and Linda Davies, Plaintiffs, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, and Dr. Howard K, 2001 WL 35902232 (Trial Pleading) (Mass.Super. Apr. 7, 2001) Verified Complaint (NO. SUPERIORCOURT01-1647) 30 Hillary GOODRIDGE and Julie Goodridge, David Wilson and Robert Compton, Michael Horgan and Edward Balmelli, Maureen Brodoff and Ellen Wade, Gary Chalmers and Richard Linnell, Heidi Norton and Gina Smith, and Gloria Bailey and Linda Davies, Plaintiffs, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, and Dr. Howard K, 2001 WL 35920963 (Trial Pleading) (Mass.Super. Apr. 11, 2001) Verified Complaint (NO. 01-1647A) 31 Hillary GOODRIDGE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, et al., Defendants., 2001 WL 34825145 (Trial Pleading) (Mass.Super. May 11, 2001) Answer (NO. 01-1647-A) 32 Hillary GOODRIDGE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, et al., Defendants., 2001 WL 35920962 (Trial Pleading) (Mass.Super. May 11, 2001) Answer (NO. 01-1647-A)
Mass.Super. Trial Motions, Memoranda And Affidavits 33 Hillary GOODRIDGE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, et al., Defendants., 2001 WL 35920960 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Mass.Super. Jan. 18, 2001) Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment Thomas F. Reilly (NO. 01-1647-A) 34 Hillary GOODRIDGE and Julie Goodridge, David Wilson and Robert Compton, Michael Horgan and Edward Balmelli, Maureen Brodoff and Ellen Wade, Gary Chalmers and Richard Linnell, Heidi Norton and Gina Smith, and Gloria Bailey and Linda Davies, Plaintiffs, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, and Dr. Howard K, 2001 WL 34825136 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Mass.Super. Aug. 20, 2001) Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 01-1647-A) 35 Hillary GOODRIDGE and Julie Goodridge, David Wilson and Robert Compton, Michael Horgan and Edward Balmelli, Maureen Brodoff and Ellen Wade, Gary Chalmers and Richard Linnell, Heidi Norton and Gina Smith, and Gloria Bailey and Linda Davies, Plaintiffs, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, and Dr. Howard K, 2001 WL 35920961 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Mass.Super. Aug. 20, 2001) Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 01-1647-A) 36 Hillary GOODRIDGE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, et al., Defendants., 2001 WL 34825138 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Mass.Super. Dec. 14, 2001) Memorandum of Amicus Curiae Massachusetts Family Institute, Inc., in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 01-1647-A) 37 Hillary GOODRIDGE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, et al., Defendants., 2001 WL 34825137 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Mass.Super. Dec. 19, 2001) Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 01-1647-A) 38 Hillary GOODRIDGE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, et al., Defendants., 2001 WL 34825140 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Mass.Super. Dec. 19, 2001) Brief of Amici Curiae Focus on the Family, the Common Good Foundation, Catholic Vote & the American Center for Law and Justice in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 01-1647A) 39 HILLARY GOODRIDGE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, et al., Defendants., 2001 WL 35810575 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Mass.Super. Dec. 19, 2001) Brief of Amici Curiae Focus on the Family, the Common Good Foundation, Catholic Vote & the American Center for Law and Justice in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 01-1647A) 40 Hillary GOODRIDGE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, et al., Defendants., 2001 WL 34825141 (Trial Motion, Memorandum
and Affidavit) (Mass.Super. Dec. 20, 2001) Brief of Amici Curiae, Massachusetts Citizens Alliance and Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage (NO. CA01-1647-A) 41 Hillary GOODRIDGE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, et al., Defendants., 2001 WL 34825139 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Mass.Super. Dec. 27, 2001) Brief of Amici Curiae, Massachusetts Citizens Alliance and Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage (NO. CA01-1647-A) 42 HILLARY GOODRIDGE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, et al., Defendants., 2001 WL 35810576 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Mass.Super. Dec. 27, 2001) Brief of Amici Curiae, Massachusetts Citizens Alliance and Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage (NO. CA01-1647-A) 43 Hillary GOODRIDGE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, et al., Defendants., 2002 WL 32910993 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Mass.Super. Jan. 10, 2002) Brief of Amicus Curiae Marriage Law Project in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 01-1647-A) 44 HILLARY GOODRIDGE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, et al., Defendants., 2002 WL 33935468 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Mass.Super. Jan. 10, 2002) Brief of Amicus Curiae Marriage Law Project in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 01-1647-A) 45 Hillary GOODRIDGE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, et al., Defendants., 2002 WL 34094267 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Mass.Super. Jan. 18, 2002) Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 01-1647-A) 46 Hillary GOODRIDGE and Julie Goodridge, David Wilson and Robert Compton, Michael Horgan and Edward Balmelli, Maureen Brodoff and Ellen Wade, Gary Chalmers and Richard Linnell, Heidi Norton and Gina Smith, and Gloria Bailey and Linda Davies, Plaintiffs, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, and Dr. Howard K, 2002 WL 32910990 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Mass.Super. Mar. 4, 2002) Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Cross Motion for Summary Judgment and Reply (NO. 01-1647-A) 47 Hillary GOODRIDGE and Julie Goodridge, David Wilson and Robert Compton, Michael Horgan and Edward Balmelli, Maureen Brodoff and Ellen Wade, Gary Chalmers and Richard Linnell, Heidi Norton and Gina Smith, and Gloria Bailey and Linda Davies, Plaintiffs, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, and Dr. Howard K, 2002 WL 34094266 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Mass.Super. Mar. 4, 2002) Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Cross Motion for Summary Judgment and Reply (NO. 01-1647-A) 48 Hillary GOODRIDGE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, et al., Defendants., 2004 WL 5042720 (Trial Motion, Memorandum
and Affidavit) (Mass.Super. May 4, 2004) Motion to Intervene of Ambassador Ray Flynn and Thomas A. Shields (NO. 01-1647-A) Dockets (U.S.A.) Mass. 49 HILLARY GOODRIDGE & OTHERS v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH & ANOTHER, NO. SJC-08860 (Docket) (Mass. Sep. 24, 2002)
Date of Printing: Jan 29, 2014 KEYCITE Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309, 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass., Nov 18, 2003) (NO. SJC-08860)
Date of Printing: Jan 29, 2014 KEYCITE Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309, 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. Nov 18, 2003) (NO. SJC-08860) Citing References Negative Cases (U.S.A.) Disagreed With by 1 Andersen v. King County, 138 P.3d 963, 975+, 158 Wash.2d 1, 21+ (Wash. Jul 26, 2006) (NO. 75934-1, 75956-1) " HN: 15,31,34 (N.E.2d) 2 Hernandez v. Robles, 805 N.Y.S.2d 354, 359+, 26 A.D.3d 98, 102+, 2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 09436, 09436+ (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept. Dec 08, 2005) (NO. 103434/04, 6598, 6599) " HN: 31,32,34 (N.E.2d) Declined to Follow by 3 Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, 957 A.2d 407, 417+, 289 Conn. 135, 150+ (Conn. Oct 28, 2008) (NO. 17716) " HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 4 Conaway v. Deane, 932 A.2d 571, 628+, 401 Md. 219, 314+ (Md. Sep 18, 2007) (NO. 44 SEPT.TERM 2006) " 5 In re Marriage Cases, 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 675, 701+, 143 Cal.App.4th 873, 873+, 06 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9451, 9451+, 2006 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,485, 13485+ (Cal.App. 1 Dist. Oct 05, 2006) (NO. A110449, A110450, A110451, A110463, A110651, A110652) " HN: 15,36,42 (N.E.2d) 6 Lewis v. Harris, 875 A.2d 259, 267+, 378 N.J.Super. 168, 182+ (N.J.Super.A.D. Jun 14, 2005) (NO. A-2244-03T5) " HN: 31,32,36 (N.E.2d) 7 Seymour v. Holcomb, 790 N.Y.S.2d 858, 865, 7 Misc.3d 530, 536, 2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 25070, 25070 (N.Y.Sup. Feb 23, 2005) (NO. 2004-0458) 8 Morrison v. Sadler, 821 N.E.2d 15, 26+ (Ind.App. Jan 20, 2005) (NO. 49A02-0305-CV-447) " HN: 31,33 (N.E.2d) Disagreement Recognized by 9 Cote-Whitacre v. Department of Public Health, 844 N.E.2d 623, 631+, 446 Mass. 350, 352+ (Mass. Mar 30, 2006) (NO. SJC-09436) " HN: 15,34,36 (N.E.2d) Distinguished by 10 In re Marriage Cases, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 698+, 183 P.3d 384, 397+, 43 Cal.4th 757, 778+, 08 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5820, 5820+, 2008 Daily Journal D.A.R.
7079, 7079+ (Cal. May 15, 2008) (NO. S147999) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 11 In re Kandu, 315 B.R. 123, 139+, Bankr. L. Rep. P 80,145, 80145+ (Bankr.W.D.Wash. Aug 17, 2004) (NO. 03-51312) " Positive Cases (U.S.A.) Examined 12 Charron v. Amaral, 889 N.E.2d 946, 947+, 451 Mass. 767, 768+ (Mass. Jul 10, 2008) (NO. SJC-09942) " HN: 31,36,42 (N.E.2d) 13 Schulman v. Attorney General, 850 N.E.2d 505, 506+, 447 Mass. 189, 190+ (Mass. Jul 10, 2006) (NO. SJC-09684) " 14 In re Opinions of the Justices to the Senate, 802 N.E.2d 565, 566+, 440 Mass. 1201, 1202+ (Mass. Feb 03, 2004) (NO. SJC-09163) " HN: 15,31,36 (N.E.2d) 15 Sandra and Roberta COTE-WHITACRE, & others, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, & others., 2004 WL 5322660, *5322660+ (Trial Order) (Mass.Super. Aug 18, 2004) Memorandum of Decision and Order on Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (NO. 04-2656-G) " HN: 31,36,42 (N.E.2d) 16 Largess v. Supreme Judicial Court for State of Massachusetts, 373 F.3d 219, 222+ (1st Cir.(Mass.) Jun 29, 2004) (NO. 04-1621) " HN: 31,38,42 (N.E.2d) 17 Largess v. Supreme Judicial Court for State of Massachusetts, 317 F.Supp.2d 77, 79+ (D.Mass. May 13, 2004) (NO. CIV.A.04-10921-JLT) " HN: 31,38,42 (N.E.2d) 18 Cote-Whitacre v. Department of Public Health, 2004 WL 2075557, *1+, 18 Mass.L.Rptr. 190, 190+ (Mass.Super. Aug 18, 2004) (NO. 042656G) " HN: 31,36,42 (N.E.2d) 19 Hernandez v. Robles, 794 N.Y.S.2d 579, 589+, 7 Misc.3d 459, 470+, 2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 25057, 25057+ (N.Y.Sup. Feb 04, 2005) (NO. 103434/2004) " HN: 32,36 (N.E.2d) 20 Castle v. State, 2004 WL 1985215, *13+ (Wash.Super. Sep 07, 2004) (NO. 04-2-00614-4) " HN: 31,34,36 (N.E.2d) Discussed 21 Elia-Warnken v. Elia, 972 N.E.2d 17, 19+, 463 Mass. 29, 31+ (Mass. Jul 26, 2012) (NO. SJC-11023) " HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 22 Gillespie v. City of Northampton, 950 N.E.2d 377, 382+, 460 Mass. 148, 153+ (Mass. Jul 14, 2011) (NO. SJC-10791) " HN: 27,30 (N.E.2d) 23 Com. v. Weston W., 913 N.E.2d 832, 836+, 455 Mass. 24, 26+ (Mass. Sep 25, 2009) (NO. SJC-10299) " HN: 27,29,30 (N.E.2d) 24 Doyle v. Goodridge, 827 N.E.2d 1255, 1255+, 444 Mass. 1006, 1006+ (Mass. May 27, 2005) (NO. SJC-09254) " HN: 31,42 (N.E.2d)
25 Della Corte v. Ramirez, 961 N.E.2d 601, 603+, 81 Mass.App.Ct. 906, 907+ (Mass.App.Ct. Feb 02, 2012) (NO. 11-P-451) " HN: 2,6,40 (N.E.2d) 26 Thomka v. Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Ass'n, Inc., 2007 WL 867084, *6+, 22 Mass.L.Rptr. 263, 263+ (Mass.Super. Feb 12, 2007) (NO. 051028) " 27 Smelt v. County of Orange, 374 F.Supp.2d 861, 867+ (C.D.Cal. Jun 16, 2005) (NO. SACV04-1042-GLT(MLGX) " 28 Jackson v. Abercrombie, 884 F.Supp.2d 1065, 1077+ (D.Hawai'i Aug 08, 2012) (NO. CIV. 11-00734 ACK) " HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 29 Massachusetts v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, 2010 WL 1667622, *1+ (D.Mass. Apr 22, 2010) (NO. CIVA 09-11156-JLT) HN: 11 (N.E.2d) 30 Parker v. Hurley, 474 F.Supp.2d 261, 266+, 218 Ed. Law Rep. 187, 187+ (D.Mass. Feb 23, 2007) (NO. C.A. 06-10751-MLW) " 31 Albright v. Morton, 321 F.Supp.2d 130, 137+, 32 Media L. Rep. 1769, 1769+, 7 A.L.R.6th 757, 757+ (D.Mass. May 28, 2004) (NO. C.A.02-11458-NG) " 32 Bishop v. U.S. ex rel. Holder, 2014 WL 116013, *23+ (N.D.Okla. Jan 14, 2014) (NO. 04-CV-848-TCK-TLW) " HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 33 Strauss v. Horton, 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 591, 611+, 207 P.3d 48, 64+, 46 Cal.4th 364, 392+, 09 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6281, 6281+, 2009 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7585, 7585+, 2009 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7609, 7609+ (Cal. May 26, 2009) (NO. S168047, S168066, S168078) 34 Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 225, 256+, 95 P.3d 459, 485+, 33 Cal.4th 1055, 1099+, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7342, 7342+, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9916, 9916+ (Cal. Aug 12, 2004) (NO. S122865, S122923) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 35 Lane v. Albanese, 2005 WL 896129, *1+, 39 Conn. L. Rptr. 3, 3+ (Conn.Super. Mar 18, 2005) (NO. FA044002128S) " HN: 41 (N.E.2d) 36 Salucco v. Alldredge, 2004 WL 864459, *1+, 17 Mass.L.Rptr. 498, 498+ (Mass.Super. Mar 19, 2004) (NO. 02E0087GC1) HN: 36,42 (N.E.2d) 37 Deane v. Conaway, 2006 WL 148145, *7+ (Md.Cir.Ct. Jan 20, 2006) (NO. 24-C-04-005390) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 38 Lewis v. Harris, 908 A.2d 196, 211+, 188 N.J. 415, 441+ (N.J. Oct 25, 2006) (NO. A-68 SEPT.TERM 2005) " HN: 31,42 (N.E.2d) 39 Hernandez v. Robles, 821 N.Y.S.2d 770, 775+, 855 N.E.2d 1, 6+, 7 N.Y.3d 338, 357+, 2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 05239, 05239+ (N.Y. Jul 06, 2006) (NO. 1, 3, 86, 87, 88, 89) " HN: 32,36 (N.E.2d) 40 Li v. State, 2004 WL 1258167, *7+ (Or.Cir. Apr 20, 2004) (NO. 0403-03057) " HN: 31 (N.E.2d) 41 Mary LI and Rebecca Kennedy; Stephen Knox, M.D., and Eric Warshaw, M.D.; Kelly Burke and Dolores Doyle; Donna Potter and Pamela Moen; Dominick Verti and Douglas Dewitt; Sally Sheklow and Enid Lefton; Irene Farrera and Nina Korican; Walter Frankel and Curtis Kiefer; Julie Williams and Coleen Belisle;
Basic Rights Oregon; and American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, Plaintiffs, Multnomah County, Intervenor-Plaintiff, v. State of Oregon; Theodore, 2004 WL 4963161, *4963161+ (Trial Order) (Or.Cir. Apr 20, 2004) Opinion and Order (NO. 0403-03057) " HN: 31 (N.E.2d) 42 Chambers v. Ormiston, 935 A.2d 956, 959+ (R.I. Dec 07, 2007) (NO. 2006-340) " HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 43 In re Marriage of J.B. and H.B., 326 S.W.3d 654, 675+ (Tex.App.-Dallas Aug 31, 2010) (NO. 05-09-01170-CV) " HN: 15,31,34 (N.E.2d) 44 Andersen v. King County, 2004 WL 1738447, *6+ (Wash.Super. Aug 04, 2004) (NO. 04-2-04964-4-SEA) " HN: 33,34 (N.E.2d) Cited 45 U.S. v. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. 2675, 2690+, 186 L.Ed.2d 808, 808+, 81 USLW 4633, 4633+, 118 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1417, 1417+, 111 A.F.T.R.2d 2013-2385, 2013-2385+, 2013-2 USTC P 50,400, 50400+, 47 NDLR P 120, 120+, 13 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6655, 6655+, 2013 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8343, 8343+, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 445, 445+ (U.S. Jun 26, 2013) (NO. 12-307) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 46 Libertarian Ass'n of Massachusetts v. Secretary of Com., 969 N.E.2d 1095, 1111, 462 Mass. 538, 558 (Mass. Jun 18, 2012) (NO. SJC-11109) " HN: 24 (N.E.2d) 47 Finch v. Commonwealth Health Ins. Connector Authority, 946 N.E.2d 1262, 1273, 459 Mass. 655, 669 (Mass. May 06, 2011) (NO. SJC-10748) HN: 27,29 (N.E.2d) 48 Com. v. Washington W., 928 N.E.2d 908, 912+, 457 Mass. 140, 144+ (Mass. Jun 25, 2010) (NO. SJC-10506) " HN: 31 (N.E.2d) 49 L.M. v. R.L.R., 888 N.E.2d 934, 938, 451 Mass. 682, 687 (Mass. Jun 19, 2008) (NO. SJC-10060) " HN: 14 (N.E.2d) 50 Com. v. Ora, 883 N.E.2d 1217, 1221, 451 Mass. 125, 130 (Mass. Apr 10, 2008) (NO. SJC-10019) " HN: 10 (N.E.2d) 51 A.H. v. M.P., 857 N.E.2d 1061, 1064, 447 Mass. 828, 829 (Mass. Dec 08, 2006) (NO. SJC-09815) 52 Carleton v. Com., 858 N.E.2d 258, 271, 447 Mass. 791, 810, 18 A.D. Cases 1430, 1430 (Mass. Dec 07, 2006) (NO. SJC-09564) " HN: 26 (N.E.2d) 53 Darviris v. Petros, 812 N.E.2d 1188, 1195, 442 Mass. 274, 282 (Mass. Aug 09, 2004) (NO. SJC-09182) " HN: 10 (N.E.2d) 54 Com. v. Chau, 925 N.E.2d 572+, 76 Mass.App.Ct. 1127+ (Mass.App.Ct. Apr 27, 2010) (Table, text in WESTLAW, NO. 08-P-2043) HN: 29 (N.E.2d) 55 Com. v. Baran, 905 N.E.2d 1122, 1148, 74 Mass.App.Ct. 256, 287 (Mass.App.Ct. May 15, 2009) (NO. 07-P-1096) " 56 Smith v. Jones, 868 N.E.2d 629, 631, 69 Mass.App.Ct. 400, 402 (Mass.App.Ct. Jun 22, 2007) (NO. 06-P-1045)
57 City Cyber Cafe, LLC v. Coakley, 2012 WL 6674481, *3 (Mass.Super. Dec 17, 2012) (NO. 12-4194-BLS1) HN: 10,28 (N.E.2d) 58 North Shore Kennel of Lynn, Inc. v. Com., 2011 WL 3841277, *1 (Trial Order) (Mass.Super. Feb 28, 2011) Memorandum and Decision on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (NO. 2010-00832-A) HN: 29,30 (N.E.2d) 59 Marino v. Highland Medical Center, P.C., 2009 WL 3416226, *1 (Mass.Super. Aug 18, 2009) (NO. 2007582) 60 Spencer v. Town of North Reading, 2007 WL 4099176, *1 (Mass.Super. Nov 06, 2007) (NO. 071849) 61 Ortiz v. Lebovidge, 2007 WL 1064038, *1 (Mass.Super. Mar 09, 2007) (NO. CIV.A. 06-1092) " HN: 10 (N.E.2d) 62 Fiske v. Town of North Attleboro, 2007 WL 809785, *6+, 22 Mass.L.Rptr. 242, 242+ (Mass.Super. Feb 14, 2007) (NO. 0404764) " HN: 21 (N.E.2d) 63 Cote-Whitacre v. Department of Public Health, 2006 WL 3208758, *1, 21 Mass.L.Rptr. 513, 513 (Mass.Super. Sep 29, 2006) (NO. CIV.A. 04-2656) 64 Sandra COTE-WHITACRE & others, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH & others., 2006 WL 4555670, *4555670 (Trial Order) (Mass.Super. Sep 29, 2006) Memorandum of Decision on Whether Same-Sex Marriage is Prohibited in New York and Rhode Island (NO. 04-2656) 65 Machado v. Leahy, 2004 WL 233335, *10, 17 Mass.L.Rptr. 263, 263 (Mass.Super. Jan 03, 2004) (NO. BRCV200200514) HN: 29 (N.E.2d) 66 Paul J. MACHADO & others, v. William J. LEAHY & others., 2004 WL 5317788, *5317788 (Trial Order) (Mass.Super. Jan 03, 2004) Memorandum of Decision and Order on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (NO. BRCV2002-00514) " HN: 29 (N.E.2d) 67 Cravedi v. Houseman, 2006 WL 344962, *9 (Mass.Land Ct. Feb 15, 2006) (NO. 298594) 68 Parker v. Hurley, 514 F.3d 87, 92, 229 Ed. Law Rep. 328, 328 (1st Cir.(Mass.) Jan 31, 2008) (NO. 07-1528) 69 Amrak Productions, Inc. v. Morton, 410 F.3d 69, 72, 33 Media L. Rep. 1891, 1891 (1st Cir.(Mass.) Jun 03, 2005) (NO. 04-1449) 70 Windsor v. U.S., 699 F.3d 169, 200+, 110 A.F.T.R.2d 2012-6370, 2012-6370+, 2012-2 USTC P 60,654, 60654+ (2nd Cir.(N.Y.) Oct 18, 2012) (NO. 12-2335-CV L, 12-2435) " HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 71 Smelt v. County of Orange, 447 F.3d 673, 683, 06 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3711, 3711, 2006 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5385, 5385 (9th Cir.(Cal.) May 05, 2006) (NO. 05-56040) HN: 41 (N.E.2d) 72 Lofton v. Secretary of Dept. of Children and Family Services, 358 F.3d 804, 825+, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 201, 201+ (11th Cir.(Fla.) Jan 28, 2004) (NO. 01-16723) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 73 Dragovich v. U.S. Department of the Treasury, 764 F.Supp.2d 1178, 1190, 111
Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 726, 726, 107 A.F.T.R.2d 2011-538, 2011-538, 2011-1 USTC P 50,166, 50166 (N.D.Cal. Jan 18, 2011) (NO. 10-01564 CW) " HN: 2,33,34 (N.E.2d) 74 Massachusetts v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, 698 F.Supp.2d 234, 239+, Med & Med GD (CCH) P 303,487, 303487+ (D.Mass. Jul 08, 2010) (NO. CIV. A. 1:09-11156) HN: 24 (N.E.2d) 75 Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, 699 F.Supp.2d 374, 389, 109 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1333, 1333, 106 A.F.T.R.2d 2010-5184, 2010-5184, 2010-2 USTC P 50,509, 50509, 49 Employee Benefits Cas. 2751, 2751 (D.Mass. Jul 08, 2010) (NO. CIV. A. 09-10309-JLT) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 76 Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, 2010 WL 2509922, *1+ (D.Mass. Jun 16, 2010) (NO. CIV. .A 09-11156-JLT) 77 Citizens for Equal Protection, Inc. v. Bruning, 368 F.Supp.2d 980, 1000 (D.Neb. May 12, 2005) (NO. 4:03CV3155) 78 Kitchen v. Herbert, 2013 WL 6697874, *5+ (D.Utah Dec 20, 2013) (NO. 2:13-CV-217) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 79 Alaska Civil Liberties Union v. State, 122 P.3d 781, 795+, 96 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1428, 1428+ (Alaska Oct 28, 2005) (NO. S-10459) " 80 Mueller v. Tepler, 33 A.3d 814, 818, 132 Conn.App. 742, 749 (Conn.App. Dec 27, 2011) (NO. 32489) 81 Fountas v. Com'r of the Massachusetts Dept. of Revenue, 2009 WL 3792468, *3792468+ (Trial Order) (Mass.Super. Feb 06, 2009) Memorandum of Decision and Order on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (NO. 08-0121) " HN: 10,24 (N.E.2d) 82 Com. v. Pugh, 2009 WL 890988, *6+, 25 Mass.L.Rptr. 329, 329+ (Mass.Super. Jan 26, 2009) (NO. CR2007-1323) HN: 11 (N.E.2d) 83 Deane v. Conaway, 2006 WL 6021625, *6021625+ (Trial Order) (Md.Cir.Ct. Jan 20, 2006) Memorandum (NO. 24-C-04-005390) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 84 National Pride At Work, Inc. v. Governor of Michigan, 748 N.W.2d 524, 546+, 481 Mich. 56, 91+, 103 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 534, 534+, 43 Employee Benefits Cas. 2537, 2537+ (Mich. May 07, 2008) (NO. 133429, 133554) (in dissent) HN: 31 (N.E.2d) 85 Rodlund v. Gibson, 2008 WL 73548, *3 (Minn.App. Jan 03, 2008) (NO. A06-2255) 86 Donaldson v. State, 292 P.3d 364, 373+, 367 Mont. 228, 241+, 2012 MT 288, 288+ (Mont. Dec 17, 2012) (NO. DA 11-0451) HN: 2,36 (N.E.2d) 87 Hennefeld v. Township of Montclair, 22 N.J.Tax 166, 180 (N.J.Tax Mar 15, 2005) (NO. 007682-2004) HN: 38 (N.E.2d) 88 Griego v. Oliver, 2013 WL 6670704, *8+ (N.M. Dec 19, 2013) (NO. 34,306) " HN: 2,6 (N.E.2d) 89 Godfrey v. Spano, 892 N.Y.S.2d 272, 281, 920 N.E.2d 328, 337, 13 N.Y.3d 358,
377, 107 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1358, 1358, 2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 08474, 08474 (N.Y. Nov 19, 2009) (NO. 147, 148) HN: 38 (N.E.2d) 90 Samuels v. New York State Dept. Of Health, 811 N.Y.S.2d 136, 139+, 29 A.D.3d 9, 12+, 2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 01213, 01213+ (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept. Feb 16, 2006) (NO. 98084) 91 People v. Greenleaf, 780 N.Y.S.2d 899, 901, 5 Misc.3d 337, 340, 2004 N.Y. Slip Op. 24267, 24267 (N.Y.Just.Ct. Jul 13, 2004) (NO. 04030294) 92 State v. Carswell, 871 N.E.2d 547, 551, 114 Ohio St.3d 210, 213, 2007-Ohio-3723, 3723 (Ohio Jul 25, 2007) (NO. 2006-0151, 3244) 93 State v. Hare, 2006 WL 2141587, *5+, 2006-Ohio-3926, 3926+ (Ohio App. 5 Dist. Jul 27, 2006) (NO. 05CAA06038) 94 State v. Rodriguez, 2006 WL 1793688, *3, 2006-Ohio-3378, 3378 (Ohio App. 6 Dist. Jun 30, 2006) (NO. H-05-020) 95 State v. McKinley, 2006 WL 1381635, *8, 2006-Ohio-2507, 2507 (Ohio App. 3 Dist. May 22, 2006) (NO. 8-05-14) 96 State v. Brown, 849 N.E.2d 44, 47, 166 Ohio App.3d 32, 36, 2006-Ohio-1181, 1181 (Ohio App. 5 Dist. Mar 13, 2006) (NO. 2005CA00074) 97 State v. Nixon, 845 N.E.2d 544, 549, 165 Ohio App.3d 178, 183, 2006-Ohio-72, 72 (Ohio App. 9 Dist. Jan 11, 2006) (NO. 22667) 98 State v. Burk, 843 N.E.2d 1254, 1256, 164 Ohio App.3d 740, 744, 2005-Ohio-6727, 6727 (Ohio App. 8 Dist. Dec 20, 2005) (NO. 86162) 99 State v. Edwards, 2005 WL 3642716, *2, 2005-Ohio-7064, 7064 (Ohio App. 5 Dist. Dec 19, 2005) (NO. 2005CA00129) 100 State v. Adams, 2005 WL 3196850, *3, 2005-Ohio-6333, 6333 (Ohio App. 5 Dist. Nov 28, 2005) (NO. 2005 CA 00103) 101 State v. Newell, 2005 WL 1364937, *5, 2005-Ohio-2848, 2848 (Ohio App. 5 Dist. May 31, 2005) (NO. 2004CA00264) 102 Brinkman v. Miami Univ., 861 N.E.2d 925, 927, 139 Ohio Misc.2d 114, 117, 216 Ed. Law Rep. 612, 612, 2005-Ohio-7161, 7161 (Ohio Com.Pl. Nov 22, 2005) (NO. CV 2005-11-3736) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 103 Bloomfield v. Stearns, 2005 WL 4651079, *1 (Ohio Com.Pl. Mar 24, 2005) (NO. 2005-CV-12) 104 City of Cleveland v. Knipp, 2005 WL 1017620, *3 (Ohio Mun. Mar 10, 2005) (NO. 2004 CRB 039103) 105 Appling v. Doyle, 2011 WL 2447704, *1 (Trial Order) (Wis.Cir. Jun 20, 2011) Decision and Order (NO. 10-CV-4434) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) Mentioned 106 Diatchenko v. District Attorney for Suffolk Dist., --- N.E.2d ----, 2013 WL 6726856, *8, 466 Mass. 655, 668 (Mass. Dec 24, 2013) (NO. SJC-11453) HN: 42 (N.E.2d)
107 Massachusetts v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, 682 F.3d 1, 6, 115 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 65, 65, 109 A.F.T.R.2d 2012-2374, 2012-2374, 2012-1 USTC P 50,412, 50412 (1st Cir.(Mass.) May 31, 2012) (NO. 10-2204, 10-2207, 10-2214) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 108 Golinski v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 824 F.Supp.2d 968, 992+, 114 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 819, 819+ (N.D.Cal. Feb 22, 2012) (NO. C 10-00257 JSW) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 109 Kerrigan v. State, 909 A.2d 89, 93, 49 Conn.Supp. 644, 651, 41 Conn. L. Rptr. 709, 709 (Conn.Super. Jul 12, 2006) (NO. CV-04 4001813) 110 Port v. Cowan, 44 A.3d 970, 973, 426 Md. 435, 440 (Md. May 18, 2012) (NO. 69 SEPT.TERM 2011) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 111 Garden State Equality v. Dow, --- A.3d ----, 2013 WL 6153269, *2 (N.J.Super.L. Sep 27, 2013) (NO. L-1729-11) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 112 Griego v. Maggie Toulouse Oliver, 2013 WL 5768197, *1 (Trial Order) (N.M. Dist. Sep 03, 2013) Final Declaratory Judgment (NO. D 202 CV 2013 2757) HN: 2,6,34 (N.E.2d) 113 Griego v. Oliver, 2013 WL 4716361, *1 (Trial Order) (N.M. Dist. Aug 26, 2013) Declaratory Judgment, Injunction, and Peremptory Writ of Mandamus (NO. D 202 CV 2013 2757) HN: 2,6,34 (N.E.2d) 114 Lewis v. New York State Dept. of Civil Service, 872 N.Y.S.2d 578, 583, 60 A.D.3d 216, 221, 105 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 544, 544, 45 Employee Benefits Cas. 2377, 2377, 2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 00283, 00283 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept. Jan 22, 2009) (NO. 504900) 115 Hebel v. West, 803 N.Y.S.2d 242, 247, 25 A.D.3d 172, 178, 2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 07887, 07887 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept. Oct 27, 2005) (NO. 97432, 97433) 116 Langan v. St. Vincent's Hosp. of New York, 802 N.Y.S.2d 476, 489, 25 A.D.3d 90, 107, 2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 07495, 07495 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept. Oct 11, 2005) (NO. 11618/02, 2003-04702) State Administrative Materials (U.S.A.) 117 Michael P. Starkowski, 2007 WL 4117969 (Conn.A.G.), *8 (2007) 118 Diane Goss Farrell Kenneth M. McKeever, Esq., 2004 WL 1110332 (Conn.A.G.), *4+ (2004) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 119 MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION AND ANNETTE WHITEHEAD-PLEAUX, COMPLAINANTS v. SHRINERS HOSPITAL FOR CHILDREN, RESPONDENT, 2010 WL 4633298, *17+ (MCAD Nov 05, 2010) (NO. MCAD 04-BEM-01593, MCAD 06-BEM-01307) 120 MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION AGAINST COMMISSION AND PETER D. MCGRATH, COMPLAINANT, v. LOCAL UNION NO. 12004, UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, STEPHEN T. BRADLEY, GARY S. BUMA, PAUL P. EDMONDS, CHARLES H. GRANT, JR., RAYMOND L.
LAHAIR, JR., CHARLES MCNEIL, RONALD F. MEZZANO, THOMAS NUGENT AND THOMAS ST. PIERRE, RESPONDENTS, 2004 WL 1852966, *42 (MCAD Jul 28, 2004) (NO. 96-BEM-38, 96-SEM-08) 121 2006 Idaho Op. Atty. Gen. 5, Honorable Lawerence Denney (2006) HN: 15,31,34 (N.E.2d) 122 Toni Ramirez Wheeler, 2007 WL 1139263 (Kan.A.G.), *11 (2007) 123 97 Md. Op. Atty. Gen. 72, David R. Durfee, Jr. (2012) 124 95 Md. Op. Atty. Gen. 3, The Honorable Richard S. Madaleno, Jr. (2010) 125 RICHARD K. KERSTGENS (DECEASED), EMPLOYEE NANCY KERSTGENS, ADMINISTRATRIX, CLAIMANT BABSON COLLEGE, EMPLOYER NEEIA COMPENSATION, INC., INSURER, 20 Massachusetts Workers' Compensation Reports 141 (2006) HN: 37 (N.E.2d) 126 JAMES WILSON (DECEASED), EMPLOYEE JUDITH WILSON, CLAIMANT WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC COMPANY, EMPLOYER WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC COMPANY, SELF-INSURER, 18 Massachusetts Workers' Compensation Reports 222 (2004) HN: 11 (N.E.2d) 127 EMPLOYEE: GUILLERMO MEDELLIN EMPLOYER: CASHMAN KPA INSURER: NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE CO., 17 Massachusetts Workers' Compensation Reports 592 (2003) HN: 37 (N.E.2d) 128 RICHARD K. KERSTGENS (DECEASED), EMPLOYEE NANCY KERSTGENS, ADMINISTRATRIX, CLAIMANT BABSON COLLEGE, EMPLOYER NEEIA COMPENSATION, INC., INSURER, 2006 WL 1586681 (Mass.Dept.Ind.Acc.), *5 (2006) HN: 37 (N.E.2d) 129 2005 Mich. OAG No. 7171, Honorable Jacob W. Hoogendyk, Jr. (2005) 130 2004 N.Y. Op. Atty. Gen. No. 1, Darrin B. Derosia Peter Case Graham (2004) HN: 31,34,36 (N.E.2d) 131 Senator Timothy Z. Jennings, 2004 WL 2019901 (N.M.A.G.), *1 (2004) 132 The Honorable Stephen D. Newman The Honorable David B. Albo The Honorable Kathy J. Byron The Honorable John A. Cosgrove The Honorable Robert G. Marshall, 2006 WL 4286442 (Va.A.G.), *9 (2006) Other Administrative Materials (U.S.A.) 133 C.M., Appellant and U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, Arlington, MA, Employer, 2007 WL 2457705 (E.C.A.B.), *6+ (2007) 134 IN THE MATTER OF ARBITRATION BETWEEN: RESPONDENT GRIEVANT-LABOR UNION (Electric, Gas and Sanitary Services) UNFAIR AND UNREASONABLE TREATMENT, 2010 WL 5648560, *1 (AAA Oct 05, 2010) (NO. AAA REDACTED, GRIEVANCE #REDACTED) HN: 4 (N.E.2d) Secondary Sources (U.S.A.)
135 Marriage Between Persons of Same Sex--United States and Canadian Cases, 1 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 1 (2005) HN: 31,32,34,36 (N.E.2d) 136 Validity of Legal Claim Predicated on Nonmarital Same-Sex Relationship, 8 A.L.R.6th 339 (2005) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 137 Adoption of Child by Same-Sex Partners, 61 A.L.R.6th 1 (2011) HN: 12,13,34 (N.E.2d) 138 SSACHUSETTS, Employment Law: A State by State Compendium MA (2011) 139 20090629 AHLA Seminar Papers 2, Year in Review (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 140 20110210 AHLA Seminar Papers 37, Getting Organized to Provide Accountable Care: Physician and Hospital Perspectives in Structuring an ACO (2013) 141 20110209 AHLA Seminar Papers 90, Provider Obligations and Responsibilities on Access for Patients (2013) 142 4 Arizona Practice s 5.1, A valid marriage (2013) 143 5 Arizona Practice s 12:3, Marriage (2013) 144 Baldwin's Ohio Practice Domestic Relations Law s 2:76, Same sex marriage (2013) HN: 11,36 (N.E.2d) 145 California Community Property Law s 2:47, Same sex marriages (2013) 146 25 Causes of Action 2d 1, Cause of Action for Second-Parent Adoption (2013) 147 30 Causes of Action 2d 285, Cause of Action for Interstate Dissolution of Civil Union or Domestic Partnership (2013) 148 Children and the Law: Rights and Obligations s 6:2, General statement (2013) 149 Children and the Law: Rights and Obligations s 6:3, General statement-Capacity to marry (2013) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 150 20 Connecticut Practice Series s 11:21, Discrimination-Connecticut protections, interplay with federal law (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 151 ALABAMA FAMILY LAW s 1:1, Marriage defined (2013) HN: 2,34 (N.E.2d) 152 ALABAMA FAMILY LAW s 1:9, Same gender marriage (2013) HN: 2,6,34 (N.E.2d) 153 Defamation: A Lawyer's Guide s 1:13, Libelous imputation of immorality (2013) 154 Dobbs Law of Torts s 392, Loss of consortium (2013) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 155 Employee Benefits Handbook/Manual s 2:36, Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") Supreme Court decision-Dissenting opinions (2013) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 156 Employee Privacy Law s 9:31, Massachusetts (2013) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 157 Gillespie MI Crim. Law & Proc. s 106:2, Age, consent, and capacity of parties (2013) 158 Gov. Discrim.: Equal Protection Law & Litig. s 1:7, State constitutional standards (2013) 159 Gov. Discrim.: Equal Protection Law & Litig. s 4:26, A four-tier model: a rationality plus tier requiring interests articulated by the state or assumed by the
court-toward substantive equal protection (2013) 160 Gov. Discrim.: Equal Protection Law & Litig. s 5:18, Gays, lesbians, and sexual orientation (2013) 161 Gov. Discrim.: Equal Protection Law & Litig. s 6:24, Privacy and familyMarriage and children (2013) 162 Handling Child Custody, Abuse and Adoption Cases s 8:2, Sexual orientation as precluding custody (2013) 163 Handling Child Custody, Abuse and Adoption Cases s 8:7, Same-sex marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships (2013) HN: 11,15 (N.E.2d) 164 12 Illinois Practice Series 750 5/213.1, s 213.1. Same-sex marriages; Public policy (2013) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 165 International Encyclopaedia of Laws: Family & Succession - USA INTRO, duction (2011) 166 International Encyclopaedia of Laws: Family & Succession - USA BIBLIO, graphy (2011) 167 International Encyclopaedia of Laws: Family & Succession - USA PT II CH 1, Chapter 1. Marriage (2011) 168 Jurywork Systematic Techniques s 4:14, Step 1: Establishing a prima facie caseThe struck juror must be a member of a cognizable group-Opportunities to expand cognizable groups (2013) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 169 1 Kansas Law and Practice s 3:2, Requisites of a valid marriage (2013) 170 Kentucky Practice, Domestic Relations Laws s 3:12, Marriage-State constitutional challenges to same-sex marriage prohibition (2013) 171 Legal Rights of Children s 4:4, Obligation to support illegitimate children (2013) HN: 14 (N.E.2d) 172 Legal Rights of Children s 2:13, Rights of same-sex partner as parent (2013) HN: 14 (N.E.2d) 173 s 8:2. Fundamental right to marry (2013) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 174 s 8:3. Equal protection-Sex discrimination (2013) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 175 s 8:4. Equal protection-Sexual orientation (2013) 176 s 8:5. Right to free expression (2013) HN: 33,36 (N.E.2d) 177 s 8:8. Litigation of specific cases (2013) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 178 Litigating Tort Cases s 26:7, Initial steps in litigation-Determining the real party in interest; personal representatives (2013) HN: 11 (N.E.2d) 179 Litigating Tort Cases s 25:15, Consortium rights of particular persons-Persons in same-sex "marriages", civil unions, or domestic partnerships (2013) 180 Local Government Law s 14:24, Civil rights (2013) 181 1 Mass. Prac. Series s 17:1, Definition of marriage (2013) HN: 2,4,41 (N.E.2d) 182 1 Mass. Prac. Series s 17:8, Marriage and family-based consortium claims (2013) 183 1 Mass. Prac. Series s 1:12, Traditional definition of marriage refined (2013) HN:
38,42 (N.E.2d) 184 1 Mass. Prac. Series s 15:16, The dependent child exemption (2013) HN: 2,34,41 (N.E.2d) 185 1 Mass. Prac. Series s 15:17, Differences between Massachusetts tax law and federal law as applied to same-sex marriages-Massachusetts D.O.R. Technical Information Release 04-17 (2013) HN: 2,33,38 (N.E.2d) 186 1 Mass. Prac. Series s 16:10, Tax considerations for same sex couples (2013) HN: 2,34,38 (N.E.2d) 187 1 Mass. Prac. Series s 19:16, The evolution of same-sex marriage (2013) HN: 2,34,41 (N.E.2d) 188 1 Mass. Prac. Series s 19:17, The decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (2013) HN: 33,34,36 (N.E.2d) 189 2 Mass. Prac. Series s 28:19, Divorce dissolving same-sex marriage (2013) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 190 10 Mass. Prac. Series s 16:14, Loss of consortium damages (2013) 191 15 Mass. Prac. Series s 19:2, Grantees-Tenants by the entirety (2013) 192 16 Mass. Prac. Series s 66:1, Tax considerations-Massachusetts (2013) HN: 17 (N.E.2d) 193 18 Mass. Prac. Series s 3.2, Federal considerations (2013) HN: 38 (N.E.2d) 194 18 Mass. Prac. Series s 9.19, City or town clerk (2013) 195 18 Mass. Prac. Series s 15.19, Validity-Classification (2013) HN: 29 (N.E.2d) 196 23 Mass. Prac. Series s 11.18, Omission of spouse from will (2013) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 197 24 Mass. Prac. Series s 26.1, Introduction: The Goodridge decision (2013) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 198 24 Mass. Prac. Series s 26.3, Estate planning concerns (2013) HN: 11,13 (N.E.2d) 199 28 Mass. Prac. Series s 6.8, Homestead-Regular-Historically (2013) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 200 28 Mass. Prac. Series s 5.46, Grantees-Tenants by the entirety (2013) 201 28 Mass. Prac. Series s 31.11, Special problems-Tenancies by the entirety (2013) HN: 11 (N.E.2d) 202 32 Mass. Prac. Series s 252, Sodomy (2013) 203 37 Mass. Prac. Series s 13.8, Loss of consortium (2013) HN: 11 (N.E.2d) 204 45 Mass. Prac. Series s 7.3, Privacy in the workplace-Definition of privacy-The constitutional standard: a reasonable expectation of privacy concerning fundamental matters (2013) HN: 17 (N.E.2d) 205 48 Mass. Prac. Series s 4:39, The post-February, 1980 tenancy by the entirety-In general (2013) HN: 11 (N.E.2d) 206 48 Mass. Prac. Series s 4:41, Attachment of new tenancy by entirety permitted
(2013) HN: 11 (N.E.2d) 207 48 Mass. Prac. Series s 4:53, Homestead (2013) HN: 11 (N.E.2d) 208 48 Mass. Prac. Series s 9:33, In general (2013) HN: 11 (N.E.2d) 209 48 Mass. Prac. Series s 9:70, Exemptions from seizure on execution (2013) HN: 11 (N.E.2d) 210 49 Mass. Prac. Series s 4:6, Marital disqualification (2013) HN: 12 (N.E.2d) 211 51 Mass. Prac. Series s 11.2, Itemization of verdict (2013) HN: 11 (N.E.2d) 212 51 Mass. Prac. Series s 10.14, Recommended jury instructions (2013) 213 14A Mass. Prac. Series s 8.1, Introduction (2013) 214 14A Mass. Prac. Series s 8.2, Same%60sex marriages (2013) HN: 38,42 (N.E.2d) 215 14A Mass. Prac. Series s 8.9, Impediments to valid marriage-Consanguinity and affinity (2013) 216 14A Mass. Prac. Series s 8.11, Impediments to valid marriage-Prior marriage still valid (2013) 217 17B Mass. Prac. Series s 55.2, Proof of marriage (2013) 218 29A Mass. Prac. Series s 21.1, Introduction-Summary of statutory provisions (2013) 219 McQuillin The Law of Municipal Corporations s 24:422, Municipal legislation on civil rights (2013) HN: 2,5,6 (N.E.2d) 220 17 NO. 3 Miller & Starr, California Real Estate Newsalert 1, Always a Bridesmaid? Unveiling California's Domestic Partner Laws, Including Their Impact on Real Property (2007) 221 20 NO. 1 Miller & Starr, California Real Estate Newsalert 1, UPDATES ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGES AND DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS IN CALIFORNIA: Real Property Implications of Strauss v. Horton. (2009) 222 Modern Constitutional Law s 13:18, Generally (2013) 223 Modern Constitutional Law s 13:22, Domestic partnerships and marriage (2013) 224 New Wigmore, The: A Treatise on Evidence: Evidentiary Privileges s 6.9.1, Definition of the Various Parties in the Privileged Relations (2014) 225 New York Practice Employment Law in New York s 7:33, Special wage issuesSame-sex marriage (2013) HN: 2,34 (N.E.2d) 226 New York Wills s 1:7, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 227 New York Wills s 2:8, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 228 New York Wills s 3:8, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 229 New York Wills s 4:8, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 230 New York Wills s 5:8, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 231 New York Wills s 6:9, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 232 New York Wills s 7:9, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 233 New York Wills s 21:9, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d)
234 New York Wills s 22:9, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 235 New York Wills s 23:9, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 236 New York Wills s 29:7, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 237 New York Wills s 30:6, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 238 New York Wills s 31:7, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 239 New York Wills s 32:8, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 240 New York Wills s 33:8, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 241 New York Wills s 34:8, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 242 New York Wills s 35:8, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 243 New York Wills s 8:10, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 244 New York Wills s 9:10, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 245 New York Wills s 10:11, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 246 New York Wills s 11:11, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 247 New York Wills s 12:11, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 248 New York Wills s 13:11, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 249 New York Wills s 14:11, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 250 New York Wills s 15:11, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 251 New York Wills s 16:10, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 252 New York Wills s 17:11, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 253 New York Wills s 18:11, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 254 New York Wills s 19:11, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 255 New York Wills s 20:11, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 256 New York Wills s 24:11, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 257 New York Wills s 25:11, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 258 New York Wills s 26:11, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 259 New York Wills s 27:10, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 260 New York Wills s 28:10, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 261 Nichols Cyclopedia of Legal Forms Annotatated s 100:1, Definitions and status of persons as spouses or domestic or civil partners, generally (2013) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 262 N.C. Divorce, Alimony & Child Custody with Forms s 1:5, Recognition of unmarried cohabitation as a legal status worthy of protection (2013) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 263 N.C. Divorce, Alimony & Child Custody with Forms s 4:9, Same-sex marriage (2013) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 264 2013 Norton Annual Survey of Bankruptcy Law 14, Same-Sex Marriages in Bankruptcy: A Path Out of the Public Policy Quagmire (2013) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d)
265 Ordinance Law Annotations Civil Rights s 4, Right to marry (2013) HN: 2,6 (N.E.2d) 266 21 NO. 5 Probate Law Journal of Ohio 7, When Saying "I Do" Does Not Do It: Estate Planning For Same Sex Couples (2011) 267 Recovery for Wrongful Death s 3:24, Same-sex partners (2013) HN: 11 (N.E.2d) 268 Religious Organizations and the Law s 1:17, Common law protections (2013) 269 Religious Organizations and the Law s 2:79, Personal autonomy in choice of intimate sexual relationships (2013) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 270 Religious Organizations and the Law s 14:11, History of same-sex marriage in the United States (2013) 271 Religious Organizations and the Law s 14:12, Hollingsworth v. Perry and the battle over Proposition 8 in California (2013) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 272 Religious Organizations and the Law s 14:13, The Equal Protection Clause and same-sex marriage (2013) HN: 32,34,36 (N.E.2d) 273 Religious Organizations and the Law s 14:16, Status of same-sex marriage and its impact across the states (2013) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 274 Religious Organizations and the Law s 14:21, Same-sex marriage and freedom of speech (2013) HN: 2,6,34 (N.E.2d) 275 Religious Organizations and the Law s 14:33, Future of polygamous relationships in the United States (2013) HN: 22 (N.E.2d) 276 Religious Organizations and the Law s 17:24, Compliance with public policyState public policy and same-sex marriage (2013) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 277 Sexual Orientation and the Law s 1:1, Introduction (2013) 278 Sexual Orientation and the Law s 1:5, The irrelevance of sexual orientationLawrence v. Texas (2013) 279 Sexual Orientation and the Law s 1:6, The irrelevance of sexual orientationSame-sex marriage (2013) 280 Sexual Orientation and the Law s 1:7, The irrelevance of sexual orientationNexus and specificity (2013) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 281 Sexual Orientation and the Law s 2:1, Introduction (2013) 282 Sexual Orientation and the Law s 2:2, History and overview of same-sex marriage (2013) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 283 Sexual Orientation and the Law s 3:1, Introduction (2013) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 284 Sexual Orientation and the Law s 15:2, The prevalence of activism (2013) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 285 Sexual Orientation and the Law s 1:10, The irrelevance of sexual orientationLifestyle and affairs-Post-divorce same-sex marriage or civil union (2013) 286 Sexual Orientation and the Law s 1:14, Children of civil unions or same-sex marriage (2013) HN: 34,36,42 (N.E.2d) 287 Sexual Orientation and the Law s 1:26, Generally (2013) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d)
288 Sexual Orientation and the Law s 2:16, Massachusetts (2013) HN: 34,36,42 (N.E.2d) 289 Sexual Orientation and the Law s 12:21, Generally-Forum (2013) HN: 20 (N.E.2d) 290 Tennessee Automobile Liability Insurance s 2:3, Spouse as named insured (2013) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 291 Tiffany Real Property s 1120.50, Same-sex marriage, civil union, and domestic partnership (2013) 292 Trial Handbook for Alabama Lawyers s 26:4, Requirement of existence of marital relationship (2013) 293 Va. Prac. Family Law: Theory Practice and Forms s 1:1, Introduction (2013) 294 Va. Prac. Family Law: Theory Practice and Forms s 2:5, Same sex marriage (2013) HN: 38 (N.E.2d) 295 Va. Prac. Family Law: Theory Practice and Forms s 1:11, Nonmarital cohabitation and domestic partnerships (2013) HN: 31 (N.E.2d) 296 West's McKinney's Forms Matrimonial and Family Law s 1:3, Qualifications for marriage-Not of the same sex (2013) 297 Wills s 1:7, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 298 Wills s 2:8, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 299 Wills s 3:8, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 300 Wills s 4:8, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 301 Wills s 5:8, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 302 Wills s 6:9, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 303 Wills s 7:9, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 304 Wills s 21:9, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 305 Wills s 22:9, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 306 Wills s 23:9, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 307 Wills s 29:7, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 308 Wills s 30:6, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 309 Wills s 31:7, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 310 Wills s 32:8, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 311 Wills s 33:8, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 312 Wills s 34:8, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 313 Wills s 35:8, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 314 Wills s 8:10, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 315 Wills s 9:10, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 316 Wills s 10:11, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 317 Wills s 11:11, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d)
318 Wills s 12:11, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 319 Wills s 13:11, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 320 Wills s 14:11, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 321 Wills s 15:11, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 322 Wills s 16:10, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 323 Wills s 17:11, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 324 Wills s 18:11, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 325 Wills s 19:11, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 326 Wills s 20:11, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 327 Wills s 24:11, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 328 Wills s 25:11, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 329 Wills s 26:11, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 330 Wills s 27:10, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 331 Wills s 28:10, Estate tax considerations (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 332 11 Witkin, California Summary 10th Husband and Wife s 44, Same-Sex Marriage. 333 Workers' Compensation Guide s 2:20, Analysis and guidelines-Domestic partner benefits (2013) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 334 36 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 2d 441, Validity of Marriage (2013) HN: 31,34 (N.E.2d) 335 Am. Jur. 2d Bigamy s 1, Generally; definitions (2014) 336 Am. Jur. 2d Constitutional Law s 333, Definition (2014) HN: 10 (N.E.2d) 337 Am. Jur. 2d Constitutional Law s 622, Matrimonial or family matters (2014) 338 Am. Jur. 2d Constitutional Law s 894, Sexual orientation-Marriage (2014) 339 Am. Jur. 2d Infants s 12, Generally; federal authority (2014) HN: 35 (N.E.2d) 340 CJS Bigamy and Related Offenses s 2, Statutory and constitutional provisions, generally (2013) 341 CJS Children Out-of-Wedlock s 1, Definitions and general considerations (2013) HN: 35 (N.E.2d) 342 CJS Children Out-of-Wedlock s 39, Generally (2013) HN: 14 (N.E.2d) 343 CJS Civil Rights s 42, Sexual orientation (2013) 344 CJS Constitutional Law s 74, Provisions adopted from or related to other constitutions or statutes-Federal Constitution (2013) HN: 20 (N.E.2d) 345 CJS Constitutional Law s 611, Scope of power (2013) HN: 10 (N.E.2d) 346 CJS Constitutional Law s 616, Generally (2013) HN: 10 (N.E.2d) 347 CJS Constitutional Law s 670, Marriage, sex, and family (2013) HN: 15 (N.E.2d) 348 CJS Constitutional Law s 1040, Generally (2013) HN: 17 (N.E.2d) 349 CJS Constitutional Law s 1407, Generally; marriage and divorce (2013)
350 CJS Divorce s 11, Generally (2013) HN: 8 (N.E.2d) 351 CJS Marriage s 7, Same-sex marriages (2013) 352 CJS Marriage s 11, Statutory requirements (2013) HN: 1 (N.E.2d) 353 CJS Marriage s 30, Solemnization (2013) HN: 7 (N.E.2d) 354 CJS Marriage s 33, Solemnization-Place of solemnization (2013) HN: 7 (N.E.2d) 355 GAY MARRIAGES HALTED, BUT 3,000 UNIONS UPHELD Oregon Judge Urges Legislature to Recognize Rights of Same-Sex Couples, 3 NO. 17 A.B.A. J. E-Report 5, 5+ (2004) HN: 41 (N.E.2d) 356 DOMA AND DIFFUSION THEORY: ENDING ANIMUS LEGISLATION THROUGH A RATIONAL BASIS APPROACH, 44 Akron L. Rev. 621, 678+ (2011) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 357 BEYOND THE SEX-ED WARS: ADDRESSING DISADVANTAGED SINGLE MOTHERS' SEARCH FOR COMMUNITY, 44 Akron L. Rev. 167, 220 (2011) 358 THE TIMING OF FACIAL CHALLENGES, 43 Akron L. Rev. 51, 77 (2010) 359 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS: BLOOD, GENES, AND FAMILY, 41 Akron L. Rev. 347, 398 (2008) 360 REVERSING TIME'S ARROW: LAW'S REORDERING OF CHRONOLOGY, CAUSALITY, AND HISTORY, 40 Akron L. Rev. 587, 622 (2007) 361 CITIZENS NOT SUBJECTS: U.S. FOREIGN RELATIONS LAW AND THE DECENTRALIZATION OF FOREIGN POLICY, 40 Akron L. Rev. 647, 715+ (2007) HN: 38 (N.E.2d) 362 "I WILL NOT PRONOUNCE YOU HUSBAND AND HUSBAND": JUSTICE AND THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, 61 Ala. L. Rev. 847, 867+ (2010) HN: 32 (N.E.2d) 363 COVENANT MARRIAGE: AN UNNECESSARY SECOND ATTEMPT AT FAULT-BASED DIVORCE, 61 Ala. L. Rev. 869, 890 (2010) 364 CONSTITUTIONAL SAFETY VALVE: THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES CLAUSE AND STATUS REGIMES IN A FEDERALIST SYSTEM, 62 Ala. L. Rev. 111, 189 (2010) 365 A NATIONAL MODEL FOR RECONCILING EQUAL PROTECTION FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES WITH STATE MARRIAGE AMENDMENTS: ALASKA CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION EX REL. CARTER V. ALASKA, 23 Alaska L. Rev. 117, 138+ (2006) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 366 DEFINING RIGHTS IN THE STATES: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AND POPULAR RESPONSE, 76 Alb. L. Rev. 2061, 2077+ (2013) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 367 STATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY, 76 Alb. L. Rev. 2105, 2140 (2013) HN: 2,6,34 (N.E.2d) 368 THE ONCE AND FUTURE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: ON THE LAW OF AMERICAN STATE CONSTITUTIONS, 74 Alb. L. Rev. 1671, 1681 (2011)
HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 369 STATE CONSTITUTIONAL DECISION-MAKING AND PRINCIPLES OF EQUALITY: REVISITING BAKER V. STATE AND THE QUESTION OF GENDER IN THE MARRIAGE EQUALITY DEBATE, 74 Alb. L. Rev. 1683, 1702+ (2011) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 370 CHIEF JUSTICE MARGARET MARSHALL: A LIFETIME DEVOTED TO DEFENDING LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL, 74 Alb. L. Rev. 1789, 1809+ (2011) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 371 THE COURT OF APPEALS'S DECISION IN GODFREY V. SPANO: A TROUBLING EXERCISE OF INDECISION, 73 Alb. L. Rev. 701, 714 (2010) 372 BREAKING DOWN BARRIERS: THE GOODRIDGE DECISION AND MODERN CIVIL RIGHTS, 72 Alb. L. Rev. 609, 615+ (2009) 373 TO HARM, TO VICTIMIZE, AND TO DESTROY: THE UGLY REASON WHY THE CHAMBERS MAJORITY OPINION WAS SO RIGHT, 72 Alb. L. Rev. 825, 853+ (2009) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 374 JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AND PROGRESSIVE LEGISLATION: A STEP TOWARDS DECREASING HATE ATTACKS, 71 Alb. L. Rev. 545, 564+ (2008) 375 REDEFINING DUE PROCESS ANALYSIS: JUSTICE ANTHONY M. KENNEDY AND THE CONCEPT OF EMERGENT RIGHTS, 69 Alb. L. Rev. 237, 298+ (2006) HN: 32 (N.E.2d) 376 ORDINARY AND ENHANCED RATIONAL BASIS REVIEW IN THE MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT: A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION, 69 Alb. L. Rev. 415, 444+ (2006) HN: 31,34,36 (N.E.2d) 377 FOREIGN LAW AND OPINION IN STATE COURTS, 69 Alb. L. Rev. 697, 707+ (2006) 378 MINNESOTA REPUBLICAN PARTY V. WHITE AND THE FUTURE OF STATE JUDICIAL SELECTION, 69 Alb. L. Rev. 985, 1011 (2006) 379 MORE THAN ABSTRACT JUSTICE: THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT AND THE EQUAL TREATMENT OF SAME-SEX MARRIED COUPLES UNDER SECTION 302(A) OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE, 85 Am. Bankr. L.J. 195, 212+ (2011) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 380 THE CHANGING FACE OF GAY LEGAL ISSUES Lawyers Advising Clients Face Uncertainties on Issues Ranging from Parental Rights to Estate Planning, 90-JUL A.B.A. J. 47, 48 (2004) HN: 41 (N.E.2d) 381 FRAGMENTATION AND CONSOLIDATION IN THE LAW OF MARRIAGE AND SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS, 58 Am. J. Comp. L. 115, 124+ (2010) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 382 A DEMOCRATIC THEORY OF CONSTITUTIONAL COMPARISON, 56 Am. J. Comp. L. 947, 997+ (2008) HN: 38 (N.E.2d) 383 NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN UNITED STATES SUCCESSION LAW, 54 Am. J. Comp. L. 103, 124+ (2006)
384 RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX LEGAL RELATIONSHIPS IN THE UNITED STATES, 54 Am. J. Comp. L. 257, 279+ (2006) 385 CHOICE OF LAW IN THE AMERICAN COURTS IN 2004: EIGHTEENTH ANNUAL SURVEY, 52 Am. J. Comp. L. 919, 993 (2004) 386 CHOICE OF LAW IN THE AMERICAN COURTS IN 2003: SEVENTEENTH ANNUAL SURVEY, 52 Am. J. Comp. L. 9, 76 (2004) 387 RECONSIDERING SPOUSAL PRIVILEGES AFTER CRAWFORD, 33 Am. J. Crim. L. 339, 375 (2006) HN: 12 (N.E.2d) 388 IS THE HARM PRINCIPLE ILLIBERAL?, 51 Am. J. Juris. 1, 42+ (2006) 389 PROCREATIVE LIBERTY AND HARM TO OFFSPRING IN ASSISTED REPRODUCTION, 30 Am. J.L. & Med. 7, 40+ (2004) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 390 WHO WILL MAKE ROOM FOR THE INTERSEXED?, 30 Am. J.L. & Med. 41, 68 (2004) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 391 THREE STATE APPROACHES TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: WHY GOODRIDGE SHOULD HAVE FOLLOWED THE MAJORITY APPROACH, 28 Am. J. Trial Advoc. 703, 719+ (2005) HN: 32,36,42 (N.E.2d) 392 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Homosexuals' Rights to Adopt After Lofton v. Secretary of Department of Children & Family Services, 27 Am. J. Trial Advoc. 635, 635 (2004) 393 GRASSROOTS GAY RIGHTS: LEGAL ADVOCACY AT THE LOCAL LEVEL, 21 Am. U.J. Gender Soc. Pol'y & L. 507, 553+ (2013) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 394 THE "FEDERAL LAW OF MARRIAGE": DEFERENCE, DEVIATION, AND DOMA, 21 Am. U.J. Gender Soc. Pol'y & L. 705, 795+ (2013) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 395 ILLEGITIMACY AND SEX, OLD AND NEW, 20 Am. U.J. Gender Soc. Pol'y & L. 347, 385 (2012) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 396 WHAT'S SO NEW ABOUT THE NEW ILLEGITIMACY?, 20 Am. U.J. Gender Soc. Pol'y & L. 387, 436+ (2012) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 397 VOLUNTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENTS OF PARENTAGE FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES, 20 Am. U.J. Gender Soc. Pol'y & L. 467, 488+ (2012) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 398 THE NEW "ILLEGITIMACY": WINNING BACKWARD IN THE PROTECTION OF THE CHILDREN OF LESBIAN COUPLES, 20 Am. U.J. Gender Soc. Pol'y & L. 721, 740 (2012) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 399 UNITED KINGDOM, 19 Am. U.J. Gender Soc. Pol'y & L. 329, 333 (2011) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 400 PERRY V. SCHWARZENEGGER, PROPOSITION 8, AND THE FIGHT FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 19 Am. U.J. Gender Soc. Pol'y & L. 425, 435+ (2011) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 401 AMENDING THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT: A NECESSARY STEP TOWARD GAINING FULL LEGAL RIGHTS FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES, 19
Am. U.J. Gender Soc. Pol'y & L. 959, 986+ (2011) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 402 IT'S NOT JUST SHOPPING, URBAN LOFTS, AND THE LESBIAN GAY-BY BOOM: HOW SEXUAL ORIENTATION DEMOGRAPHICS CAN INFORM FAMILY COURTS, 17 Am. U.J. Gender Soc. Pol'y & L. 1, 39+ (2009) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 403 MANY ARE CHILLED, BUT FEW ARE FROZEN: HOW TRANSFORMATIVE LEARNING IN POPULAR CULTURE, CHRISTIANITY, AND SCIENCE WILL LEAD TO THE EVENTUAL DEMISE OF LEGALLY SANCTIONED DISCRIMINATION AGAINST SEXUAL MINORITIES IN THE UNITE, 14 Am. U.J. Gender Soc. Pol'y & L. 177, 252+ (2006) 404 ADAM AND STEVE VS. ADAM AND EVE: WILL THE NEW SUPREME COURT GRANT GAYS THE RIGHT TO MARRY?, 14 Am. U.J. Gender Soc. Pol'y & L. 253, 311+ (2006) HN: 11 (N.E.2d) 405 RHETORICAL HOLY WAR: POLYGAMY, HOMOSEXUALITY, AND THE PARADOX OF COMMUNITY AND AUTONOMY, 14 Am. U.J. Gender Soc. Pol'y & L. 313, 383+ (2006) 406 CONTESTING CONSERVATISMS, FAMILY FEUDS AND THE PRIVATIZATION OF DEPENDENCY, 13 Am. U.J. Gender Soc. Pol'y & L. 415, 509 (2005) 407 THE "NEW JUDICIAL FEDERALISM" BEFORE ITS TIME: A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF ECONOMIC SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS UNDER STATE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW SINCE 1940 AND THE REASONS FOR ITS RECENT DECLINE, 55 Am. U. L. Rev. 457, 540+ (2005) 408 THE FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT: TO PROTECT THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE OR DESTROY CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY?, 54 Am. U. L. Rev. 1487, 1536+ (2005) HN: 31,34,36 (N.E.2d) 409 A. DOMESTIC PARTNER BENEFITS POST-GOODRIDGE, 24 Ann. Rev. Banking & Fin. L. 80, 80+ (2005) HN: 31,36,42 (N.E.2d) 410 IN DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE: WHY SAME-SEX MARRIAGE WILL NOT LEAD US DOWN A SLIPPERY SLOPE TOWARD THE LEGALIZATION OF POLYGAMY, 6 Appalachian J. L. 101, 133+ (2006) HN: 34,42 (N.E.2d) 411 NEW FOUNDATIONS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION IN STATE COURT, 24 App. Advoc. 425, 438+ (2012) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 412 THE FREEDOM TO MARRY MUST NOT BE DENIED, 40-MAR Ariz. Att'y 14, 21+ (2004) HN: 31,32 (N.E.2d) 413 WRONG IN THE LAW AND IN THE CULTURE, 40-MAR Ariz. Att'y 15, 26 (2004) 414 THE COQUILLE INDIAN TRIBE, SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, AND SPOUSAL BENEFITS: A PRACTICAL GUIDE, 26 Ariz. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 509, 546+ (2009) 415 CIVIL PARTNERSHIP IN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND A MODERATE
PROPOSAL FOR CHANGE IN THE UNITED STATES, 22 Ariz. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 613, 630+ (2005) HN: 34,36,38 (N.E.2d) 416 WHAT'S WRONG WITH STEREOTYPING?, 55 Ariz. L. Rev. 655, 721 (2013) 417 MARITAL CONTRACTS AND THE MEANING OF MARRIAGE, 54 Ariz. L. Rev. 11, 42+ (2012) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 418 LOVERS, PARENTS, AND PARTNERS: DISENTANGLING SPOUSAL AND CO-PARENTING COMMITMENTS, 54 Ariz. L. Rev. 197, 239 (2012) HN: 33 (N.E.2d) 419 PERRY V. SCHWARZENEGGER AND THE FUTURE OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LAW, 53 Ariz. L. Rev. 913, 983+ (2011) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 420 AMBIVALENCE ABOUT THE LAW, 49 Ariz. L. Rev. 11, 28 (2007) 421 DO LAW SCHOOLS FORFEIT FEDERAL INCOME TAX EXEMPTION WHEN THEY DENY MILITARY RECRUITERS FULL ACCESS TO CAREER SERVICES PROGRAMS?: THE HYPOTHETICAL CASE OF YALE UNIVERSITY V. COMMISSIONER, 41 Ariz. St. L.J. 1, 48 (2009) HN: 31 (N.E.2d) 422 PLAYING CATCH UP: CHANGING THE BANKRUPTCY CODE TO ACCOMMODATE AMERICA'S GROWING NUMBER OF NONTRADITIONAL COUPLES, 37 Ariz. St. L.J. 681, 707+ (2005) 423 THE PECULIAR FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT, 36 Ariz. St. L.J. 783, 804 (2004) 424 A PRINCIPLED SOLUTION FOR NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CLAIMS, 36 Ariz. St. L.J. 805, 884 (2004) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 425 INTELLIGIBLE, HONEST, AND IMPARTIAL DEMOCRACY: MAKING LAWS AT THE ARKANSAS BALLOT BOX, OR WHY JIM HANNAH AND RAY THORNTON WERE RIGHT ABOUT MAY v. DANIELS, 2005 Ark. L. Notes 123, 134 (2005) 426 ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES V. COLE: ANOTHER STEP TOWARD SAME SEX MARRIAGE IN ARKANSAS?, 66 Ark. L. Rev. 527, 538+ (2013) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 427 LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF MATRIMONY: THE CONSTITUTIONAL IMPLICATIONS OF ARKANSAS'S "AMENDMENT CONCERNING MARRIAGE", 64 Ark. L. Rev. 383, 408+ (2011) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 428 ARKANSAS'S UNMARRIED COUPLE ADOPTION BAN: DEPRIVING CHILDREN OF FAMILIES, 63 Ark. L. Rev. 113, 138+ (2010) HN: 13,34 (N.E.2d) 429 COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES ON ADOPTION OF CHILDREN BY COHABITING, NONMARITAL COUPLES AND PARTNERS, 63 Ark. L. Rev. 31, 112 (2010) 430 SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: AN EXAMINATION OF THE ISSUES OF DUE
PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION, 59 Ark. L. Rev. 471, 509+ (2006) HN: 15,31,34 (N.E.2d) 431 WHAT THE SUPREME COURT ISN'T SAYING ABOUT FEDERALISM, THE NINTH AMENDMENT, AND MEDICAL MARIJUANA, 59 Ark. L. Rev. 755, 779 (2006) 432 EDUCATING THE CLIENT IN ESTATE PLANNING, 2008 WL 5689253 (ASPATORE), *8+ (2008) HN: 11 (N.E.2d) 433 8 Ave Maria L. Rev. 431, MULIERIS DIGNITATEM AND THE EXCLUSIVITY OF MARRIAGE UNDER LAW (2010) HN: 38 (N.E.2d) 434 6 Ave Maria L. Rev. 61, POPE JOHN PAUL II, FREEDOM, AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (2007) 435 5 Ave Maria L. Rev. 469, HOW LAW STUDENTS AND ATTORNEYS CAN HELP THE PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT (2007) 436 5 Ave Maria L. Rev. 555, MAY A JUDGE BE A SCOUTMASTER? DALE, WHITE, AND THE NEW MODEL CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT (2007) 437 4 Ave Maria L. Rev. 297, THE NATURE OF MARRIAGE AND ITS VARIOUS ASPECTS (2006) 438 4 Ave Maria L. Rev. 567, TRADITION AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH'S TEACHING ON MARRIAGE: A RESPONSE TO CARDINAL TRUJILLO (2006) 439 3 Ave Maria L. Rev. 393, THE FRAMEWORK OF FULL FAITH AND CREDIT AND INTERSTATE RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGES (2005) 440 3 Ave Maria L. Rev. 483, IS THE MASSACHUSETTS LAW ON MARRIAGE OF NON-RESIDENTS A BARRIER TO THE SPREAD OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE? (2005) HN: 32 (N.E.2d) 441 3 Ave Maria L. Rev. 497, CIVIL UNIONS AND THE MEANING OF THE PUBLIC POLICY EXCEPTION AT THE BOUNDARIES OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW (2005) 442 3 Ave Maria L. Rev. 531, THE PUBLIC POLICY DOCTRINE AND INTERJURISDICTIONAL RECOGNITION OF CIVIL UNIONS AND DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS (2005) HN: 38 (N.E.2d) 443 3 Ave Maria L. Rev. 617, SURVEY OF INTERSTATE RECOGNITION OF QUASI-MARITAL STATUSES (2005) HN: 41 (N.E.2d) 444 3 Ave Maria L. Rev. 637, RED STATES, BLUE STATES, MARRIAGE DEBATES (2005) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 445 3 Ave Maria L. Rev. 303, CHALLENGES FACING OUR SYSTEM OF JUSTICE (2005) 446 3 Ave Maria L. Rev. 349, BY ANY OTHER NAME: DEFINING MALE AND FEMALE IN MARRIAGE STATUTES (2005) 447 2 Ave Maria L. Rev. 153, THE STATE INTERESTS IN MARRIAGE (2004) HN: 31,32,34 (N.E.2d)
448 MINING UNEXPLORED RICHES: LITIGATING STATE CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS State constitutional claims have since the 1970s afforded counsel an alternative means to seek protection for rights not found or not as well protected und, 63-APR Bench & B. Minn. 27, 30 (2006) 449 LAWRENCE: AN UNLIKELY CATALYST FOR MASSIVE DISRUPTION IN THE SPHERE OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE PRIVACY AND INTIMATE ASSOCIATION CLAIMS, 29 Berkeley J. Emp. & Lab. L. 311, 344 (2008) 450 DECOUPLING MARRIAGE & PROCREATION: A FEMINIST ARGUMENT FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 27 Berkeley J. Gender L. & Just. 307, 338 (2012) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 451 TOWARD A "CULTURALLY CLITERATE" FAMILY LAW?, 23 Berkeley J. Gender L. & Just. 267, 337+ (2008) HN: 31,32 (N.E.2d) 452 LOVING COUPLES, SPLIT INTERESTS: TAX PLANNING IN THE FIGHT TO RECOGNIZE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 23 Berkeley J. Gender L. & Just. 145, 180+ (2008) HN: 31 (N.E.2d) 453 THE LESBIAN DE FACTO PARENT STANDARD IN HOLTZMAN V. KNOTT: JUDICIAL POLICY INNOVATION AND DIFFUSION, 22 Berkeley J. Gender L. & Just. 135, 182+ (2007) 454 "WHERE ALL BELONG:" RELIGION AND THE FIGHT FOR LGBT EQUALITY IN ALABAMA, 21 Berkeley J. Gender L. & Just. 195, 212+ (2006) 455 SAME-SEX MARRIAGE THROUGH THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE: A GENDER-CONSCIOUS ANALYSIS, 21 Berkeley J. Gender L. & Just. 213, 240+ (2006) HN: 31,34,36 (N.E.2d) 456 TAKING THE LONG VIEW: REFLECTIONS ON THE ROAD TO MARRIAGE EQUALITY, 20 Berkeley J. Gender L. & Just. 50, 55 (2005) 457 TOWARD A "EUROPEAN MODEL' OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE RIGHTS: A VIABLE PATHWAY FOR THE U.S.?, 29 Berkeley J. Int'l L. 132, 174 (2011) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 458 IS THE CONSTITUTION IN HARM'S WAY? SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS AND CRIMINAL LAW, 8 Boalt J. Crim. L. 3, 105+ (2004) 459 ALL IN THE FAMILY, 2013-NOV B. B.J. 11, 11+ (2013) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 460 REFLECTIONS ON THE LEGACY OF CHIEF JUSTICE MARGARET MARSHALL, 55-WTR B. B.J. 12, 13 (2011) 461 THE CONSTITUTIONAL JURISPRUDENCE OF THE MARSHALL COURT: THE FIRST HALF DECADE, 49-APR B. B.J. 10, 10+ (2005) HN: 31,36 (N.E.2d) 462 CIVIL UNION INSUFFICIENT Prohibition on Same-sex Marriage Violates State Constitution, 48-JUN B. B.J. 6, 6+ (2004) HN: 31,33,36 (N.E.2d) 463 ADULT SUPERVISION REQUIRED: THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS'S RECKLESS ADVENTURES WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND THE ANTI-SNOB ZONING ACT, 35 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 217, 258+ (2008) HN: 26 (N.E.2d)
464 HERE, THERE, AND EVERYWHERE: HUMAN DIGNITY IN CONTEMPORARY LAW AND IN THE TRANSNATIONAL DISCOURSE, 35 B.C. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 331, 393 (2012) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 465 THE RIGHT TO FAMILY LIFE AND CIVIL MARRIAGE UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION IN THE STATE OF ISRAEL, 28 B.C. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 79, 147 (2005) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 466 PEEKING UNDER THE COVERS: TAKING A CLOSER LOOK AT PROSECUTORIAL DECISION-MAKING INVOLVING QUEER YOUTH AND STATUTORY RAPE, 32 B.C. J.L. & Soc. Just. 421, 451+ (2012) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 467 THE CALCULUS OF ACCOMMODATION: CONTRACEPTION, ABORTION, SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, AND OTHER CLASHES BETWEEN RELIGION AND THE STATE, 53 B.C. L. Rev. 1417, 1513 (2012) HN: 2,6,34 (N.E.2d) 468 WILLS FOR EVERYONE: HELPING INDIVIDUALS OPT OUT OF INTESTACY, 53 B.C. L. Rev. 877, 952 (2012) HN: 2,6,34 (N.E.2d) 469 SHOULD RELIGIOUS GROUPS BE EXEMPT FROM CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS?, 48 B.C. L. Rev. 781, 832+ (2007) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 470 LIKE FAMILY: RIGHTS OF NONMARRIED COHABITATIONAL PARTNERS IN LOSS OF CONSORTIUM ACTIONS, 46 B.C. L. Rev. 391, 421+ (2005) HN: 32 (N.E.2d) 471 INTERSTATE RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX PARENTS IN THE WAKE OF GAY MARRIAGE, CIVIL UNIONS, AND DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS, 46 B.C. L. Rev. 1, 2+ (2004) HN: 31,42 (N.E.2d) 472 EQUAL PROTECTION THEORY AND THE HARVEY MILK HIGH SCHOOL: WHY ANTI-SUBORDINATION ALONE IS NOT ENOUGH, 45 B.C. L. Rev. 869, 904 (2004) 473 SPEAK NOW: PROGRESSIVE CONSIDERATIONS ON THE ADVENT OF CIVIL MARRIAGE FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES, 45 B.C. L. Rev. 595, 595+ (2004) HN: 17,31 (N.E.2d) 474 A RATIONAL BASIS REVIEW THAT WARRANTS STRICT SCRUTINY: THE FIRST CIRCUIT'S EQUAL PROTECTION ANALYSIS IN MASSACHUSETTS v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, 54 B.C. L. Rev. E-Supplement 43, 56+ (2013) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 475 IRRATIONAL EXUBERANCE ABOUT BABIES: THE TASTE FOR HETEROSEXUALITY AND ITS CONSPICUOUS REPRODUCTION, 28 B.C. Third World L.J. 1, 74 (2008) 476 SUSPICIOUS CLOSETS: STRENGTHENING THE CLAIM TO SUSPECT CLASSIFICATION AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE RIGHTS, 28 B.C. Third World L.J. 167, 174+ (2008) 477 "'TIL DEATH DO THEM PART?": ASSESSING THE PERMANENCE OF GOODRIDGE, 27 B.C. Third World L.J. 499, 508+ (2007)
478 WHAT LAWRENCE BROUGHT FOR "SHOW AND TELL": THE NONFUNDAMENTAL LIBERTY INTEREST IN A MINIMALLY ADEQUATE EDUCATION, 25 B.C. Third World L.J. 343, 382 (2005) 479 PUBLIC OPINION AND STRICT SCRUTINY EQUAL PROTECTION REVIEW: HIGHER EDUCATION AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND THE FUTURE OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION FRAMEWORK, 24 B.C. Third World L.J. 267, 280+ (2004) HN: 29,34 (N.E.2d) 480 BACKLASH POLITICS: HOW CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION HAS ADVANCED MARRIAGE EQUALITY IN THE UNITED STATES, 93 B.U. L. Rev. 275, 276+ (2013) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 481 JUSTICE: WHAT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO?, 91 B.U. L. Rev. 1303, 1310+ (2011) HN: 2,33,34 (N.E.2d) 482 RESPECTING FREEDOM AND CULTIVATING VIRTUES IN JUSTIFYING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, 91 B.U. L. Rev. 1311, 1338+ (2011) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 483 RIGHTS, HARMS, AND DUTIES: A RESPONSE TO JUSTICE FOR HEDGEHOGS, 90 B.U. L. Rev. 819, 837 (2010) 484 ROMANCING THE COURT, 89 B.U. L. Rev. 563, 579 (2009) 485 SUPREME COURT JUSTICES, EMPATHY, AND SOCIAL CHANGE: A COMMENT ON LANI GUINIER'S DEMOSPRUDENCE THROUGH DISSENT, 89 B.U. L. Rev. 589, 604+ (2009) 486 WHAT'S OLD IS NEW AGAIN, 86 B.U. L. Rev. 1267, 1296 (2006) 487 OUR LAW, THEIR LAW, HISTORY, AND THE CITATION OF FOREIGN LAW, 86 B.U. L. Rev. 1417, 1446 (2006) 488 THE PERFECT STORM: BANKRUPTCY, CHOICE OF LAW, AND SAMESEX MARRIAGE, 86 B.U. L. Rev. 881, 930+ (2006) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 489 PRESUMING WOMEN: REVISITING THE PRESUMPTION OF LEGITIMACY IN THE SAME-SEX COUPLES ERA, 86 B.U. L. Rev. 227, 294+ (2006) HN: 12,15 (N.E.2d) 490 NEW FATHERS, OLD RIGHTS: HOW THE MASSACHUSETTS MATERNITY LEAVE ACT DISCRIMINATES AGAINST MEN, 22 B.U. Pub. Int. L.J. 439, 468+ (2013) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 491 A TAXING DIVORCE: A SOLUTION TO DOMA'S TAX INEQUITIES IN SAME-SEX DIVORCE, 22 B.U. Pub. Int. L.J. 201, 242+ (2013) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 492 THE SHORT, PUZZLING(?) LIFE OF THE CIVIL UNION, 19 B.U. Pub. Int. L.J. 1, 22 (2009) 493 "WHAT'S IN A NAME?": WHY THE NEW JERSEY EQUAL PROTECTION GUARANTEE REQUIRES FULL RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 17 B.U. Pub. Int. L.J. 179, 201+ (2007) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 494 THE (RELATIVE) PASSIVITY OF GOODRIDGE v. DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH, 14 B.U. Pub. Int. L.J. 1, 2+ (2004) HN: 31,32,34 (N.E.2d) 495 HOW BROWN IS GOODRIDGE? THE APPROPRIATION OF A LEGAL ICON, 14 B.U. Pub. Int. L.J. 27, 27+ (2004) HN: 15,31,34 (N.E.2d) 496 GOODRIDGE AND THE RULE OF LAW SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN MASSACHUSETTS: THE MEANING AND IMPLICATIONS OF GOODRIDGE v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 14 B.U. Pub. Int. L.J. 42, 42+ (2004) HN: 31,32,36 (N.E.2d) 497 GOODRIDGE AND "THE JUSTICIARY" OF MASSACHUSETTS, 14 B.U. Pub. Int. L.J. 57, 57+ (2004) HN: 31,34,36 (N.E.2d) 498 FEAR AND LOATHING IN MASSACHUSETTS: SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND SOME LESSONS FROM THE HISTORY OF MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE, 14 B.U. Pub. Int. L.J. 87, 105+ (2004) HN: 15,36 (N.E.2d) 499 THE CONSTITUTIONAL LYNCHPIN OF LIBERTY IN AN AGE OF NEW FEDERALISM: REPLACING SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS WITH THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL, 45 Brandeis L.J. 469, 494 (2007) 500 "LEGAL IMPEDIMENTS TO MARRIAGE": MASSACHUSETTS' MARRIAGE EVASION STATUTES, SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, AND PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, 44 Brandeis L.J. 509, 528+ (2006) HN: 31,36,42 (N.E.2d) 501 SEXUAL MINORITY RIGHTS IN THE WORKPLACE, 43 Brandeis L.J. 145, 164 (2004) 502 RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS: IMPLICATIONS, CHALLENGES, AND OPPORTUNITIES, 2011 B.Y.U. Educ. & L.J. 237, 262+ (2011) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 503 EXAMINING CONTEXT IN THE CONFLICT OVER SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND EDUCATION: THE RELEVANCE OF SUBSTANCE, PROCESS AND THE PEOPLE INVOLVED, 2011 B.Y.U. Educ. & L.J. 323, 383 (2011) HN: 33 (N.E.2d) 504 SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND EDUCATION: IMPLICATIONS FOR SCHOOLS, STUDENTS, AND PARENTS, 2011 B.Y.U. Educ. & L.J. 385, 421+ (2011) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 505 SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND THE PUBLIC SCHOOL CURRICULUM: CAN PARENTS OPT THEIR CHILDREN OUT OF CURRICULAR DISCUSSIONS ABOUT SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE?, 2011 B.Y.U. Educ. & L.J. 423, 466 (2011) HN: 2,6,34 (N.E.2d) 506 STUDYING THE MASSACHUSETTS GOODRIDGE DECISION ON SAMESEX MARRIAGE AS AN ANTIDOTE TO MUTUAL MISUNDERSTANDING AND A LESSON IN CIVICS AND LAW, 2011 B.Y.U. Educ. & L.J. 495, 512+ (2011) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 507 PARENTS, RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS, AND PUBLIC SCHOOL CURRICULA, 2011 B.Y.U. Educ. & L.J. 547, 569+ (2011) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d)
508 THE HEART OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ENTERPRISE: AFFIRMING EQUALITY AND FREEDOM IN PUBLIC EDUCATION, 2011 B.Y.U. Educ. & L.J. 571, 591 (2011) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 509 THE IMPACTS ON EDUCATION OF LEGALIZING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND LESSONS FROM ABORTION JURISPRUDENCE, 2011 B.Y.U. Educ. & L.J. 593, 635+ (2011) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 510 MARRIAGE, FUNDAMENTAL PREMISES, AND THE CALIFORNIA, CONNECTICUT, AND IOWA SUPREME COURTS, 2012 B.Y.U. L. Rev. 193, 280+ (2012) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 511 MORAL MANDATE OR PERSONAL PREFERENCE? POSSIBLE AVENUES FOR ACCOMMODATION OF CIVIL SERVANTS MORALLY OPPOSED TO FACILITATING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 2011 B.Y.U. L. Rev. 1625, 1658 (2011) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 512 THE COMING COLLISION: ROMER AND STATE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACTS, 2008 B.Y.U. L. Rev. 1635, 1649 (2008) 513 INTERSTATE PLURALISM: THE ROLE OF FEDERALISM IN THE SAMESEX MARRIAGE DEBATE, 2008 B.Y.U. L. Rev. 1703, 1807 (2008) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 514 FROM SLAVERY TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: COMITY VERSUS PUBLIC POLICY IN INTER-JURISDICTIONAL RECOGNITION OF CONTROVERSIAL DOMESTIC RELATIONS, 2008 B.Y.U. L. Rev. 1855, 1926+ (2008) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 515 CAVEAT VENDOR: POTENTIAL PROGENY, PATERNITY, AND PRODUCT LIABILITY ONLINE, 2007 B.Y.U. L. Rev. 857, 897+ (2007) HN: 12,31,32 (N.E.2d) 516 RELIGIOUS GROUPS AND THE GAY RIGHTS MOVEMENT: RECOGNIZING COMMON GROUND, 2006 B.Y.U. L. Rev. 995, 1031+ (2006) HN: 38 (N.E.2d) 517 MARRIAGE AND THE BETRAYAL OF PEREZ AND LOVING, 2005 B.Y.U. L. Rev. 555, 595+ (2005) HN: 15,17,34 (N.E.2d) 518 ARE STATE MARRIAGE AMENDMENTS BILLS OF ATTAINDER?: A CASE STUDY OF UTAH'S AMENDMENT THREE, 2005 B.Y.U. L. Rev. 799, 833+ (2005) 519 IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES? A CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS AS TO WHY THE UNITED STATES SHOULD FOLLOW CANADA'S LEAD AND ALLOW SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 30 Brook. J. Int'l L. 547, 599+ (2005) HN: 31,34,36 (N.E.2d) 520 FOR SALE The Threat of State Public Accommodations Laws to the First Amendment Rights of Artistic Businesses, 77 Brook. L. Rev. 1515, 1555+ (2012) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 521 REVIVING PROXY MARRIAGE, 76 Brook. L. Rev. 455, 502 (2011) HN: 2 (N.E.2d)
522 DIGNITY, LEGAL PLURALISM, AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 75 Brook. L. Rev. 791, 860+ (2010) HN: 17 (N.E.2d) 523 NON-TRADITIONAL ACTIVISM: USING SHAREHOLDER PROPOSALS TO URGE LGBT NON-DISCRIMINATION PROTECTION, 74 Brook. L. Rev. 1513, 1538 (2009) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 524 FOR THE SAKE OF THE CHILDREN A NEW APPROACH TO SECURING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE RIGHTS?, 73 Brook. L. Rev. 695, 727+ (2008) HN: 15,31,34 (N.E.2d) 525 "EMERGING AWARENESS" AFTER THE EMERGENCE OF ROBERTS: REASONABLE SOCIETAL RELIANCE IN SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS INQUIRY, 71 Brook. L. Rev. 1587, 1630+ (2006) HN: 30 (N.E.2d) 526 WELCOME TO THE DARK SIDE Liberals Rediscover Federalism in the Wake of the War on Terror, 69 Brook. L. Rev. 1277, 1311 (2004) 527 LAWRENCE AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE BANS: ON CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION AND SOPHISTICAL RHETORIC, 69 Brook. L. Rev. 1003, 1036+ (2004) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 528 A NEW YORK STATE OF MIND: RECONCILING LEGISLATIVE INCREMENTALISM WITH SEXUAL ORIENTATION JURISPRUDENCE, 69 Brook. L. Rev. 1159, 1200+ (2004) 529 SEXUAL IDENTITY AS A FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT, 15 Buff. Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 215, 282+ (2009) 530 17 Buff. J. Gender, L. & Soc. Pol'y 1, EVALUATING LEGAL ACTIVISM: A RESPONSE TO ROSENBERG (2009) 531 FEAR OF THE QUEER CHILD, 61 Buff. L. Rev. 607, 697 (2013) HN: 2,34 (N.E.2d) 532 GETTING CLASS, 56 Buff. L. Rev. 915, 934 (2008) 533 "IF SEX OFFENDERS CAN MARRY, THEN WHY NOT GAYS AND LESBIANS?": AN ESSAY ON THE PROGRESSIVE COMPARATIVE ARGUMENT, 55 Buff. L. Rev. 777, 814+ (2007) 534 THE PROGRESS AND PITFALLS OF LAWRENCE V. TEXAS, 52 Buff. L. Rev. 1417, 1456 (2004) 535 14 Buff. Women's L.J. 1, SAME-SEX MARRIAGES IN NEW YORK: THE LANGAN AND HERNANDEZ DECISIONS (2006) 536 LET ME COUNT THE WAYS: THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF SAMESEX-MARRIAGE BANS, 27 BYU J. Pub. L. 301, 310+ (2013) HN: 32,34,36 (N.E.2d) 537 "YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT": DOES THE U.S. CONSTITUTION REQUIRE PUBLIC AFFIRMATION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE?, 27 BYU J. Pub. L. 397, 440 (2013) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 538 EQUALITY PRINCIPLES AS ASSERTED JUSTIFICATIONS FOR MANDATING THE LEGALIZATION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN
AMERICAN AND INTERCOUNTRY-COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 27 BYU J. Pub. L. 489, 527 (2013) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 539 A CHILD'S PERSPECTIVE OF DEFINING A PARENT: THE CASE FOR INTENDED PARENTHOOD, 25 BYU J. Pub. L. 245, 270+ (2011) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 540 THE BOUNDARIES OF BELONGING: ALLEGIANCE, PURPOSE AND THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE, 25 BYU J. Pub. L. 287, 315+ (2011) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 541 THE ENDURANCE OF BIOLOGICAL CONNECTION: HETERONORMATIVITY, SAME-SEX PARENTING AND THE LESSONS OF ADOPTION, 22 BYU J. Pub. L. 289, 325+ (2008) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 542 SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND TAXES, 22 BYU J. Pub. L. 327, 357+ (2008) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 543 A POTENTIAL LESSON FROM THE ISRAELI EXPERIENCE FOR THE AMERICAN SAME-SEX MARRIAGE DEBATE, 22 BYU J. Pub. L. 359, 382+ (2008) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 544 A RESPONSE TO THE "CONSERVATIVE CASE" FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND "THE TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS", 22 BYU J. Pub. L. 441, 474+ (2008) 545 THE SEARCH FOR MORAL NEUTRALITY IN SAME-SEX MARRIAGE DECISIONS, 23 BYU J. Pub. L. 1, 59+ (2008) HN: 31,34,36 (N.E.2d) 546 THE DEBATES ABOUT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES: CONTROVERSY OVER THE EVOLUTION OF A FUNDAMENTAL SOCIAL INSTITUTION, 20 BYU J. Pub. L. 195, 231+ (2006) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 547 FULL FAITH AND REPUBLICAN GUARANTEES: GAY MARRIAGE, FMPA, AND THE COURTS, 20 BYU J. Pub. L. 243, 273+ (2006) HN: 34,40 (N.E.2d) 548 WHY THE POLITICS OF MARRIAGE MATTER: EVALUATING LEGAL AND STRATEGIC APPROACHES ON BOTH SIDES OF THE DEBATE ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGES, 20 BYU J. Pub. L. 275, 312+ (2006) HN: 36,42 (N.E.2d) 549 "GOD'S CREATED ORDER," GENDER COMPLEMENTARITY, AND THE FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT, 20 BYU J. Pub. L. 313, 343+ (2006) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 550 THE SUPREME COURT AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: A PREDICTION, 20 BYU J. Pub. L. 345, 386+ (2006) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 551 FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION FOR MARRIAGE: WHY AND HOW, 20 BYU J. Pub. L. 439, 486+ (2006) HN: 15,31 (N.E.2d) 552 SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: WHEN WILL IT REACH UTAH?, 20 BYU J. Pub. L. 527, 548+ (2006) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 553 WHO DECIDES AND WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?: DEFINING
MARRIAGE IN "OUR DEMOCRATIC, FEDERAL REPUBLIC", 18 BYU J. Pub. L. 273, 307 (2004) 554 THE CURIOUS CASE OF THE MISSING LEGAL ANALYSIS, 18 BYU J. Pub. L. 309, 370+ (2004) HN: 31,36,42 (N.E.2d) 555 TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE: STILL WORTH DEFENDING, 18 BYU J. Pub. L. 419, 447 (2004) 556 THE CASE AGAINST SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN CANADA: LAW AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS, 18 BYU J. Pub. L. 479, 542+ (2004) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 557 SOME WRONGS AND (HUMAN) RIGHTS IN THE ENGLISH SAME-SEX MARRIAGE DEBATE, 18 BYU J. Pub. L. 543, 567 (2004) 558 STATUS, BENEFITS, AND RECOGNITION: CURRENT CONTROVERSIES IN THE MARRIAGE DEBATE, 18 BYU J. Pub. L. 569, 622+ (2004) HN: 31,36 (N.E.2d) 559 THE LITIGATION TO REDEFINE MARRIAGE: EQUALITY AND SOCIAL MEANING, 18 BYU J. Pub. L. 623, 663+ (2004) HN: 31,42 (N.E.2d) 560 MARRIAGE EQUALITY IN BANKRUPTCY COURT: JOINT PETITIONS FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES, 32 Cal. Bankr. J. 109, 131 (2012) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 561 STICKY SLOPES, 101 Cal. L. Rev. 1249, 1313+ (2013) HN: 15 (N.E.2d) 562 CITIZEN SPOUSE, 101 Cal. L. Rev. 407, 444 (2013) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 563 MARRIAGE INEQUALITY: SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS, RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS, AND THE PRODUCTION OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION, 100 Cal. L. Rev. 1169, 1238 (2012) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 564 MARRIAGE FRAUD, 100 Cal. L. Rev. 1, 67+ (2012) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 565 REGULATORY FICTIONS: ON MARRIAGE AND COUNTERMARRIAGE, 99 Cal. L. Rev. 235, 272 (2011) HN: 11 (N.E.2d) 566 PRIVACY TORTS: UNRELIABLE REMEDIES FOR LGBT PLAINTIFFS, 98 Cal. L. Rev. 1711, 1764+ (2010) 567 A RIGHT TO MARRY?, 98 Cal. L. Rev. 667, 696+ (2010) HN: 15 (N.E.2d) 568 RESPONSE TO MARTHA NUSSBAUM, 98 Cal. L. Rev. 721, 729 (2010) 569 HOW NOT TO LIE WITH JUDICIAL VOTES: MISCONCEPTIONS, MEASUREMENT, AND MODELS, 98 Cal. L. Rev. 813, 876 (2010) 570 "TEACHABLE MOMENTS": THE USE OF CHILD-CENTERED ARGUMENTS IN THE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE DEBATE, 98 Cal. L. Rev. 121, 157+ (2010) HN: 15,31,34 (N.E.2d) 571 FOREWORD: JUDICIAL OPINIONS AS PUBLIC RHETORIC, 97 Cal. L. Rev. 1763, 1784 (2009) 572 FOREWORD: THE MARRIAGE CASES-REVERSING THE BURDEN OF INERTIA IN A PLURALIST CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY, 97 Cal. L. Rev. 1785, 1852+ (2009) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 573 EQUAL RITES AND EQUAL RIGHTS, 96 Cal. L. Rev. 1395, 1404+ (2008)
574 THE MODERN FAMILY UNIT: TOWARD A MORE INCLUSIVE VISION OF THE FAMILY IN IMMIGRATION LAW, 96 Cal. L. Rev. 1049, 1091 (2008) 575 BEYOND ANALOGY: PEREZ V. SHARP, ANTIMISCEGENATION LAW, AND THE FIGHT FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 96 Cal. L. Rev. 839, 900+ (2008) HN: 15,17,36 (N.E.2d) 576 WHAT LAWRENCE SHOULD HAVE SAID: RECONSTRUCTING AN EQUALITY APPROACH, 96 Cal. L. Rev. 505, 546+ (2008) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 577 PUTATIVE PARTNERS: PROTECTING COUPLES FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF TECHNICALLY INVALID DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS, 95 Cal. L. Rev. 2147, 2183 (2007) 578 FEDERALISM AND ACCOUNTABILITY: STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL, REGULATORY LITIGATION, AND THE NEW FEDERALISM, 95 Cal. L. Rev. 885, 914 (2007) 579 CONSTITUTIONAL CULTURE, SOCIAL MOVEMENT CONFLICT AND CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE: THE CASE OF THE DE FACTO ERA 2005-06 Brennan Center Symposium Lecture, 94 Cal. L. Rev. 1323, 1419+ (2006) 580 TRANSCENDING THE INDIVIDUALIST PARADIGM IN SEXUAL ORIENTATION ANTIDISCRIMINATION LAW, 94 Cal. L. Rev. 1271, 1322+ (2006) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 581 UNDERCOVER OTHER, 94 Cal. L. Rev. 873, 906 (2006) 582 DEPENDENCY AND THE LIBERAL POLITY: ON MARTHA FINEMAN'S THE AUTONOMY MYTH, 93 Cal. L. Rev. 1285, 1321+ (2005) HN: 17 (N.E.2d) 583 JUDICIAL SUPREMACY AND THE MODEST CONSTITUTION, 92 Cal. L. Rev. 1045, 1067 (2004) 584 CONSTITUTIONAL CHOICES: LEGAL FEMINISM AND THE HISTORICAL DYNAMICS OF CHANGE, 92 Cal. L. Rev. 755, 839 (2004) 585 WHAT IF DOMA WERE REPEALED? THE CONFUSED AND CONFUSING INTERSTATE MARRIAGE RECOGNITION JURISPRUDENCE, 41 Cal. W. Int'l L.J. 249, 274+ (2010) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 586 INTERSTATE RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, THE PUBLIC POLICY EXCEPTION, AND CLEAR STATEMENTS OF EXTRATERRITORIAL EFFECT, 41 Cal. W. Int'l L.J. 105, 141 (2010) 587 WHO DECIDES? THE FEDERAL ARCHITECTURE OF DOMA AND COMPARATIVE MARRIAGE RECOGNITION, 41 Cal. W. Int'l L.J. 143, 187+ (2010) 588 HOW CALIFORNIA GOT IT RIGHT: MINING IN RE MARRIAGE CASES FOR THE SEEDS OF A VIABLE FEDERAL CHALLENGE TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE BANS, 41 Cal. W. Int'l L.J. 49, 92+ (2010) 589 "A PAINFUL PROCESS OF WAITING": THE NEW YORK, WASHINGTON, NEW JERSEY, AND MARYLAND DISSENTING JUSTICES UNDERSTAND THAT "SAME-SEX MARRIAGE" IS NOT WHAT SAME-SEX COUPLES
ARE SEEKING, 45 Cal. W. L. Rev. 139, 178+ (2008) 590 THE HIDDEN DICHOTOMY IN THE LAW OF MORALITY, 31 Campbell L. Rev. 591, 611+ (2009) HN: 31,34 (N.E.2d) 591 AVOIDANCE STRATEGY: SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LITIGATION AND THE FEDERAL COURTS, 29 Campbell L. Rev. 29, 46+ (2006) 592 FEDERALISM IN NORTH AMERICA: LEGISLATURES, GOVERNORS, AND PREMIERS, 30 Can.-U.S. L.J. 351, 351+ (2004) HN: 11 (N.E.2d) 593 PERMANENCY v. BIOLOGY: MAKING THE CASE FOR POST-ADOPTION CONTACT, 37 Cap. U. L. Rev. 321, 359 (2008) 594 TECHNOLOGY USE AND THE GAY MOVEMENT FOR EQUALITY IN AMERICA, 35 Cap. U. L. Rev. 665, 742+ (2007) HN: 31,42 (N.E.2d) 595 UNMARRIED FATHERS AND ADOPTION: "PERFECTING" OR "ABANDONING" AN OPPORTUNITY INTEREST, 36 Cap. U. L. Rev. 253, 293 (2007) 596 POLICING BALLOT ACCESS: LESSONS FROM NADER'S 2004 RUN FOR PRESIDENT, 35 Cap. U. L. Rev. 163, 244+ (2006) 597 THE ROLE OF ADOPTION IN WINNING PUBLIC RECOGNITION FOR ADULT PARTNERSHIPS, 35 Cap. U. L. Rev. 341, 398 (2006) 598 THE EXTENSION OF THE PRESUMPTION OF LEGITIMACY TO SAMESEX COUPLES IN NEW YORK, 19 Cardozo J.L. & Gender 579, 584+ (2013) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 599 HE'S SO GAY . . . NOT THAT THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT: USING A COMMUNITY STANDARD TO HOMOGENIZE THE MEASURE OF REPUTATIONAL DAMAGE IN HOMOSEXUAL DEFAMATION CASES, 17 Cardozo J.L. & Gender 655, 682 (2011) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 600 SACRED: RELIGION, SEXUALITY, AND THE LAW, 16 Cardozo J.L. & Gender 637, 699+ (2010) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 601 THEIR LOVE IS HERE TO STAY: WHY THE SUPREME COURT CANNOT TURN BACK THE HANDS OF TIME, 17 Cardozo J.L. & Gender 1, 31+ (2010) 602 AMENDING THE MASSACHUSETTS PARENTAL NOTIFICATION STATUTE, 14 Cardozo J.L. & Gender 759, 792+ (2008) 603 IT TAKES THREE, BABY: THE LACK OF STANDARD, LEGAL DEFINITIONS OF "BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD" AND THE RIGHT TO CONTRACT FOR LESBIAN POTENTIAL PARENTS, 15 Cardozo J.L. & Gender 1, 31 (2008) 604 SEX REQUIRED: THE IMPACT OF MASSACHUSETTS' SAME-SEX MARRIAGE CASES ON MARRIAGES WITH INTERSEX AND TRANSSEXUAL PARTNERS, 14 Cardozo J.L. & Gender 161, 174+ (2007) HN: 31,36,42 (N.E.2d) 605 LANGAN V. ST. VINCENT HOSPITAL: A FEARFUL COURT OR A PROPERLY MEASURED RESPONSE?, 13 Cardozo J.L. & Gender 439, 465
(2007) 606 THE IMPACT OF FEMININE LEADERSHIP ON STATE COURTS: A PANEL OF WOMEN CHIEF JUSTICES, 12 Cardozo J.L. & Gender 929, 935+ (2006) 607 THE SLIPPERY SLOPE: THE VITALITY OF REYNOLDS V. US AFTER ROMER AND LAWRENCE, 12 Cardozo J.L. & Gender 627, 651+ (2006) HN: 31,33,34 (N.E.2d) 608 ENGENDERING SEX: BIRTH CERTIFICATES, BIOLOGY AND THE BODY IN ANGLO AMERICAN LAW, 12 Cardozo J.L. & Gender 213, 245 (2005) 609 RADICAL TWEAK-RELOCATING THE POWER TO ASSIGN SEX From Enforcer of Differentiation to Facilitator of Inclusiveness: Revising the Response to Intersexuality, 12 Cardozo J.L. & Gender 297, 335 (2005) 610 NO PROMO HETERO: CHILDREN'S RIGHT TO BE QUEER, 35 Cardozo L. Rev. 425, 510+ (2013) HN: 32,34 (N.E.2d) 611 WE ARE NEVER EVER GETTING BACK TOGETHER : DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS, DEFENDANTS, AND DUE PROCESS, 35 Cardozo L. Rev. 141, 202+ (2013) HN: 11 (N.E.2d) 612 MADISON'S FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE: A HISTORICAL ANALYSIS, 33 Cardozo L. Rev. 125, 194 (2011) HN: 2,6,34 (N.E.2d) 613 EXEMPTIONS AND THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE, 32 Cardozo L. Rev. 1731, 1754 (2011) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 614 ODIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION QUESTION, 32 Cardozo L. Rev. 2069, 2091 (2011) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 615 LOVE, MARRIAGE, AND THE BABY CARRIAGE: REVISITING THE CHANNELLING FUNCTION OF FAMILY LAW, 28 Cardozo L. Rev. 2133, 2183+ (2007) HN: 15,31,32 (N.E.2d) 616 MEANS TO LEGITIMATE ENDS: SAME-SEX MARRIAGE THROUGH THE LENS OF ILLEGITIMACY-BASED DISCRIMINATION, 28 Cardozo L. Rev. 2373, 2400+ (2007) HN: 28,34,36 (N.E.2d) 617 THE GRISWOLD DIAGRAMS: TOWARD A UNIFIED THEORY OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, 28 Cardozo L. Rev. 623, 713 (2006) 618 CONFRONTING CONVENTIONAL THINKING: THE HEURISTICS PROBLEM IN FEMINIST LEGAL THEORY, 28 Cardozo L. Rev. 391, 440 (2006) 619 SYMPOSIUM ON ABOLISHING CIVIL MARRIAGE: AN INTRODUCTION, 27 Cardozo L. Rev. 1155, 1159 (2006) 620 DEREGULATING MARRIAGE: THE PRO-MARRIAGE CASE FOR ABOLISHING CIVIL MARRIAGE, 27 Cardozo L. Rev. 1161, 1220+ (2006) HN: 11,13 (N.E.2d) 621 A MARRIAGE SKEPTIC RESPONDS TO THE PRO-MARRIAGE PROPOSALS TO ABOLISH CIVIL MARRIAGE, 27 Cardozo L. Rev. 1261, 1276+ (2006)
622 A CASE FOR CIVIL MARRIAGE, 27 Cardozo L. Rev. 1311, 1323 (2006) 623 THE RIGHT TO MARRY, 26 Cardozo L. Rev. 2081, 2120+ (2005) HN: 11 (N.E.2d) 624 HISTORICISM, PROGRESS, AND THE REDEMPTIVE CONSTITUTION, 26 Cardozo L. Rev. 1041, 1117 (2005) 625 CIVIL UNION EQUALITY, 2012 Cardozo L. Rev. de novo 125, 145+ (2012) HN: 2,6,34 (N.E.2d) 626 DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT, WILL YOU PLEASE GO NOW!, 2012 Cardozo L. Rev. de novo 155, 171 (2012) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 627 WOULD A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROTECT AND PROMOTE MARRIAGE IN NORTH CAROLINA? AN ANALYSIS OF DATA FROM 2000 TO 2009, 2012 Cardozo L. Rev. de novo 173, 186+ (2012) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 628 LA VIE EN ROSE: JEFFREY WALDRON AND RICHARD FALLON'S MEANDER THROUGH THE WONDERLAND OF JUDICIAL REVIEW, 2009 Cardozo L. Rev. de novo 218, 237+ (2009) HN: 21 (N.E.2d) 629 A TALE OF TWO CASES: BAEHR V. MIIKE, PERRY V. SCHWARZENEGGER, AND THE FUTURE OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LITIGATION, 10 Cardozo Pub. L. Pol'y & Ethics J. 217, 266+ (2011) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 630 JOINT BANK ACCOUNTS IN NEW YORK: CONFUSION, DISCRIMINATION, AND THE NEED FOR CHANGE, 9 Cardozo Pub. L. Pol'y & Ethics J. 607, 643+ (2011) 631 "TIL DEATH DO US FILE JOINT INCOME TAX RETURNS (UNLESS WE'RE GAY), 9 Cardozo Pub. L. Pol'y & Ethics J. 451, 485+ (2011) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 632 JUSTICE KENNEDY'S SHORT-LIVED LIBERTARIAN REVOLUTION: A BRIEF HISTORY OF SUPREME COURT LIBERTARIAN IDEOLOGY, 7 Cardozo Pub. L. Pol'y & Ethics J. 1, 44+ (2008) HN: 17 (N.E.2d) 633 THROWING DOWN THE INTERNATIONAL GAUNTLET: SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AS A HUMAN RIGHT, 6 Cardozo Pub. L. Pol'y & Ethics J. 1, 55+ (2007) 634 SEPARATING CIVIL UNIONS AND RELIGIOUS MARRIAGE-A NEW PARADIGM FOR RECOGNIZING SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS, 6 Cardozo Pub. L. Pol'y & Ethics J. 163, 197+ (2007) 635 INSCRIBING LESBIAN AND GAY IDENTITIES: HOW JUDICIAL IMAGINATIONS INTERTWINE WITH THE BEST INTERESTS OF CHILDREN, 11 Cardozo Women's L.J. 1, 35 (2004) 636 A PRISONER'S RIGHT TO TRANSSEXUAL THERAPIES: A LOOK AT BROOKS V. BERG, 11 Cardozo Women's L.J. 151, 176+ (2004) 637 INTRODUCING LAWRENCE V. TEXAS: SOME BACKGROUND AND A GLIMPSE OF THE FUTURE, 10 Cardozo Women's L.J. 263, 288+ (2004)
638 CHOOSING LIBERTY OVER EQUALITY AND SACRIFICING BOTH: EQUAL PROTECTION AND DUE PROCESS IN LAWRENCE V. TEXAS, 10 Cardozo Women's L.J. 411, 422 (2004) 639 THE RIGHT TO (SAME-SEX) DIVORCE, 62 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 447, 483 (2011) HN: 2,6,34 (N.E.2d) 640 WHEN ROMER MET FEENEY: WHY THE SECOND SENTENCE OF THE OHIO MARRIAGE AMENDMENT VIOLATES EQUAL PROTECTION, 61 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 1315, 1410 (2011) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 641 GAY AND LESBIAN RIGHTS TO PROCREATE AND ACCESS TO ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY, 55 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 323, 372+ (2004) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 642 FINDING MARRIAGE AMIDST A SEA OF CONFUSION: A PRECURSOR TO CONSIDERING THE PUBLIC PURPOSES OF MARRIAGE, 43 Cath. Law. 339, 365+ (2004) 643 INTEGRATING MARITAL PROPERTY INTO A SPOUSE'S ELECTIVE SHARE, 59 Cath. U. L. Rev. 617, 717 (2010) 644 MODIFIED BEST INTEREST STANDARD: HOW STATES AGAINST SAMESEX UNIONS SHOULD ADJUDICATE CHILD CUSTODY AND VISITATION DISPUTES BETWEEN SAME-SEX COUPLES, 54 Cath. U. L. Rev. 1235, 1246+ (2005) HN: 32,34,36 (N.E.2d) 645 A NEW FORM OF FAMILY PLANNING? THE ENFORCEABILITY OF NOCHILD PROVISIONS IN PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENTS, 54 Cath. U. L. Rev. 335, 372+ (2004) HN: 11 (N.E.2d) 646 THIRTY YEARS OF ADAMS V. HOWERTON: CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES, DOMA, (FN2) AND A VISION OF A DOMA-FREE WORLD, 17 Chap. L. Rev. 265, 294+ (2013) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 647 THE STRANGE INTERSECTION BETWEEN LAW, RELIGION, AND GOVERNMENT IN THE REGULATION OF MARRIAGE, 6 Charleston L. Rev. 547, 568+ (2012) HN: 8 (N.E.2d) 648 REPRODUCTIVE CHOICE: THE REPRODUCTIVE CHOICE DEBATE MUST INCLUDE MORE THAN ABORTION, 4 Charleston L. Rev. 773, 811+ (2010) HN: 32 (N.E.2d) 649 AT A CROSS-ROAD: ANTI-SAME-SEX MARRIAGE POLICIES AND PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY: THE EFFECT OF SAME-SEX COHABITATION ON ALIMONY PAYMENTS TO AN EX-SPOUSE, 84 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 1027, 1053+ (2010) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 650 THE OTHER SAME-SEX MARRIAGE DEBATE, 84 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 379, 402+ (2009) 651 THE "ACCIDENTAL PROCREATION" ARGUMENT FOR WITHHOLDING LEGAL RECOGNITION FOR SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS, 84 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 403, 435+ (2009) HN: 31,32,34 (N.E.2d) 652 MARRIAGE, TORT, AND PRIVATE ORDERING: RHETORIC AND
REALITY IN LGBT RIGHTS, 84 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 437, 480+ (2009) HN: 31,42 (N.E.2d) 653 DOMA AND THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, 84 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 481, 518+ (2009) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 654 COMMENTARY: WHERE IS THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF PAYMENT LAW?, 83 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 751, 767 (2008) 655 STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITIONS ON SPECIAL LAWS, 60 Clev. St. L. Rev. 719, 767 (2012) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 656 THE MYSTERY OF LIFE IN THE LABORATORY OF DEMOCRACY: PERSONAL AUTONOMY IN STATE LAW, 59 Clev. St. L. Rev. 589, 621+ (2011) 657 PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENTS: A NEW REASON TO REVIVE AN OLD RULE, 53 Clev. St. L. Rev. 359, 398 (2006) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 658 LIMITED POWERS IN THE LOOKING-GLASS: OTIOSE TEXTUALISM, AND AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF OTHER APPROACHES, WHEN ACTIVISTS IN PRIVATE SHOPPING CENTERS CLAIM STATE CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTIES, 53 Clev. St. L. Rev. 399, 427 (2006) 659 REPUDIATING MORALS LEGISLATION: RENDERING THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY OBSOLETE, 53 Clev. St. L. Rev. 447, 465 (2006) 660 EQUAL PROTECTION FOR HOMOSEXUALS: WHY THE IMMUTABILITY ARGUMENT IS NECESSARY AND HOW IT IS MET, 53 Clev. St. L. Rev. 545, 573+ (2006) 661 PRIVACY: A COMMON LAW AND CONSTITUTIONAL CROSSROADS, 40-JUN Colo. Law. 55, 55 (2011) 662 LEWIS v. LEWIS AND NON-MARRIED PARTNER LITIGATION, 39-JAN Colo. Law. 33, 37 (2010) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 663 SAME-SEX COUPLES: AN OVERVIEW OF MARRIAGE AND RELATED LEGAL ISSUES, 33-MAY Colo. Law. 81, 81+ (2004) HN: 31,34,36 (N.E.2d) 664 JUSTIFYING THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS PRINCIPLES IN AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 37 Colum. Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 1, 100+ (2005) 665 THREE MODELS OF GROUP-DIFFERENTIATED RIGHTS, 35 Colum. Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 215, 258 (2004) 666 WHAT'S GOOD FOR SCHOOL FINANCE SHOULD BE GOOD FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE: ADDRESSING DISPARATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS USING STATE COURTS AND CONSTITUTIONS, 30 Colum. J. Envtl. L. 135, 192+ (2005) 667 WINDSOR, FEDERALISM, AND FAMILY EQUALITY, 113 Colum. L. Rev. Sidebar 156, 179 (2013) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 668 MARRIAGE AS? A REPLY TO MARRIAGE AS PUNISHMENT, 112 Colum.
L. Rev. Sidebar 220, 227+ (2012) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 669 SODOMY AND POLYGAMY, 111 Colum. L. Rev. Sidebar 66, 69+ (2011) HN: 2,6,34 (N.E.2d) 670 GERMANY'S LIFE PARTNERSHIPS: SEPARATE AND UNEQUAL?, 16 Colum. J. Eur. L. 37, 62+ (2010) 671 SEXUALITY'S LAW, 24 Colum. J. Gender & L. 87, 252 (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 672 RELIGION BY ANY OTHER NAME? PROHIBITIONS ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND THE LIMITS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE, 23 Colum. J. Gender & L. 132, 201+ (2012) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 673 A ROOM FOR "ADAM AND STEVE" AT MRS. MURPHY'S BED AND BREAKFAST: AVOIDING THE SIN OF INHOSPITALITY IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION, 23 Colum. J. Gender & L. 326, 394 (2012) 674 DEALING WITH DOMA: FEDERAL NON-RECOGNITION COMPLICATES STATE INCOME TAXATION OF SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS, 24 Colum. J. Gender & L. 29, 51+ (2012) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 675 TAKING INITIATIVES: RECONCILING RACE, RELIGION, MEDIA AND DEMOCRACY IN THE QUEST FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY, 19 Colum. J. Gender & L. 805, 851+ (2010) HN: 15,31 (N.E.2d) 676 FORCED MARRIAGE AND THE EXOTICIZATION OF GENDERED HARMS IN UNITED STATES ASYLUM LAW, 19 Colum. J. Gender & L. 898, 955+ (2010) HN: 19 (N.E.2d) 677 THEORIZING AND LITIGATING THE RIGHTS OF SEXUAL MINORITIES, 19 Colum. J. Gender & L. 21, 31+ (2010) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 678 T: APPENDING TRANSGENDER EQUAL RIGHTS TO GAY, LESBIAN AND BISEXUAL EQUAL RIGHTS, 19 Colum. J. Gender & L. 595, 615+ (2010) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 679 TOYS ARE US: SEX TOYS, SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS, AND THE AMERICAN WAY, 18 Colum. J. Gender & L. 807, 859 (2009) 680 THE CULTURAL PROPERTY CLAIM WITHIN THE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE CONTROVERSY, 17 Colum. J. Gender & L. 343, 354+ (2008) HN: 15,17,33 (N.E.2d) 681 THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT: THEN AND NOW, 17 Colum. J. Gender & L. 419, 459 (2008) HN: 27 (N.E.2d) 682 THE POLITICS OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE POLITICS, 15 Colum. J. Gender & L. 236, 243 (2006) 683 A HISTORICAL GUIDE TO THE FUTURE OF MARRIAGE FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES, 15 Colum. J. Gender & L. 249, 272+ (2006) HN: 31 (N.E.2d) 684 BEYOND ROMER AND LAWRENCE: THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY COMES OUT OF THE CLOSET, 15 Colum. J. Gender & L. 355, 411+ (2006) HN: 15,17,31 (N.E.2d) 685 SOME ABCS OF FEMINIST SEX EDUCATION (IN LIGHT OF THE
SEXUALITY CRITIQUE OF LEGAL FEMINISM), 15 Colum. J. Gender & L. 63, 88 (2006) 686 FROM OUR FAMILY TO YOURS: RETHINKING THE "BENEFICIAL FAMILY" AND MARRIAGE-CENTRIC CORPORATE BENEFIT PROGRAMS, 14 Colum. J. Gender & L. 1, 84 (2005) HN: 11 (N.E.2d) 687 RE-ORIENTING THE SEX DISCRIMINATION ARGUMENT FOR GAY RIGHTS AFTER LAWRENCE v. TEXAS, 14 Colum. J. Gender & L. 131, 163+ (2005) 688 FOREWORD: THE NEXT NORMAL-DEVELOPMENTS SINCE MARRIAGE RIGHTS FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES IN NEW YORK, 13 Colum. J. Gender & L. 48, 50+ (2004) HN: 15,31,36 (N.E.2d) 689 VARSITY BLUES: A CALL TO RECONFIGURE THE JUDICIAL STANDARD FOR HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION TRANSFER RULES, 34 Colum. J.L. & Arts 231, 260+ (2011) HN: 27 (N.E.2d) 690 FEDERALISM AND THE GAY FAMILY: FREE MOVEMENT OF SAMESEX COUPLES IN THE UNITED STATES AND THE EUROPEAN UNION, 41 Colum. J.L. & Soc. Probs. 81, 124 (2007) 691 MARRIAGE AS PUNISHMENT, 112 Colum. L. Rev. 1, 65+ (2012) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 692 REGULATING POLYGAMY: INTIMACY, DEFAULT RULES, AND BARGAINING FOR EQUALITY, 110 Colum. L. Rev. 1955, 2046 (2010) 693 JUDICIAL ELECTIONS AS POPULAR CONSTITUTIONALISM, 110 Colum. L. Rev. 2047, 2134+ (2010) 694 SEXING SKINNER: HISTORY AND THE POLITICS OF THE RIGHT TO MARRY, 110 Colum. L. Rev. 1348, 1376 (2010) 695 THE FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT AND THE FALSE PROMISE OF ORIGINALISM, 108 Colum. L. Rev. 529, 605+ (2008) 696 THE IRONY OF JUDICIAL ELECTIONS, 108 Colum. L. Rev. 265, 330 (2008) 697 CONSTITUTIONAL TIPPING POINTS: CIVIL RIGHTS, SOCIAL CHANGE, AND FACT-BASED ADJUDICATION, 106 Colum. L. Rev. 1955, 2022+ (2006) HN: 31,36 (N.E.2d) 698 FROM MCLAUGHLIN V. FLORIDA TO LAWRENCE V. TEXAS: SEXUAL FREEDOM AND THE ROAD TO MARRIAGE, 106 Colum. L. Rev. 1165, 1187+ (2006) 699 PRECLUSION IN CLASS ACTION LITIGATION, 105 Colum. L. Rev. 717, 808 (2005) 700 UNDER THE LAW OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION: ALLOCATING CASES BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS, 104 Colum. L. Rev. 1211, 1279 (2004) 701 THE DOMESTICATED LIBERTY OF LAWRENCE V. TEXAS, 104 Colum. L. Rev. 1399, 1426+ (2004)
702 CONFLICTING APPROACHES: LEGALIZING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE THROUGH CONFLICTS OF LAW, 8 Conn. Pub. Int. L.J. 301, 331+ (2009) HN: 32,34,36 (N.E.2d) 703 THY WILL NOT BE DONE: WHY STATES SHOULD AMEND THEIR PROBATE CODES TO ALLOW AN INTESTATE SHARE FOR UNMARRIED HOMOSEXUAL COUPLES, 7 Conn. Pub. Int. L.J. 289, 312+ (2008) HN: 31,32,34 (N.E.2d) 704 WINDSOR'S PURGATORY: STATE DOMA'S CAN'T STABILIZE STRAIGHT MARRIAGES, BUT THEY CAN STILL PREVENT GAY MARRIAGE, 91 Denv. U. L. Rev. Online 25, 33+ (2013) HN: 2,6,34 (N.E.2d) 705 RETHINKING HOMOPHOBIA IN SPORTS: LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR GAY AND LESBIAN ATHLETES AND COACHES, 2 DePaul J. Sports L. & Contemp. Probs. 264, 292 (2004) 706 MARRIAGE EQUALITY? FIRST, JUSTIFY MARRIAGE (IF YOU CAN), 1 Drexel L. Rev. 485, 511 (2009) 707 ELIDING IN NEW YORK, 1 Duke J. Const. L. & Pub. Pol'y Sidebar 37, 44+ (2006) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 708 GENDERLESS MARRIAGE, INSTITUTIONAL REALITIES, AND JUDICIAL ELISION, 1 Duke J. Const. L. & Pub. Pol'y 1, 29+ (2006) HN: 15,31,38 (N.E.2d) 709 GAY LABELING AND DEFAMATION LAW: HAVE ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMOSEXUALITY CHANGED ENOUGH TO MODIFY REPUTATIONAL TORTS?, 18 CommLaw Conspectus 349, 374+ (2010) HN: 16 (N.E.2d) 710 "CONSCIENCE EXEMPTIONS", 14 Engage: J. Federalist Soc'y Prac. Groups 77, 79 (2013) HN: 2,6,34 (N.E.2d) 711 THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT: BACK FOR AN ENCORE PERFORMANCE?, 9 Engage: J. Federalist Soc'y Prac. Groups 29, 31 (2008) 712 TAX COMPLIANCE AND ESTATE PLANNING FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES, 5 Est. Plan. & Community Prop. L.J. 323, 370 (2013) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 713 THE "SOCIALLY ENDORSED, LEGALLY FRAMED, NORMATIVE TEMPLATE": WHAT HAS IN RE MARRIAGE CASES REALLY DONE FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE?, 1 Est. Plan. & Community Prop. L.J. 203, 207+ (2008) 714 LEGAL ASPECTS OF SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS IN CONNECTICUT, 85 Conn. B.J. 199, 230+ (2011) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 715 2008 CONNECTICUT APPELLATE REVIEW, 83 Conn. B.J. 1, 34 (2009) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 716 LEGAL AND TAX STATUS OF PERSONS IN CONNECTICUT CIVIL UNIONS AND OTHER UNMARRIED COHABITANTS, 78 Conn. B.J. 261, 271+ (2004) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 717 I DO. IS THAT OKAY WITH YOU?: A LOOK AT HOW MOST STATES ARE CIRCUMVENTING THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE AND EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE TO NOT RECOGNIZE LEGAL SAME-SEX MARRIAGES FROM OTHER STATES AND ITS EFFECT ON SOCIETY, 8 Fla. A & M U. L. Rev. 133, 153+ (2012) HN: 31,34,36 (N.E.2d) 718 PRIVACY, AUTHENTICITY & EQUALITY: THE MORAL AND LEGAL CASE FOR THE RIGHT TO HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE, 3 Fla. A & M U. L. Rev. 21, 40+ (2008) 719 GAY AND LESBIAN ELDERS: ESTATE PLANNING AND END-OF-LIFE DECISION MAKING, 12 Fla. Coastal L. Rev. 163, 215+ (2010) 720 SORRY MA'AM, YOUR BABY IS AN ALIEN: OUTDATED IMMIGRATION RULES AND ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY, 12 Fla. Coastal L. Rev. 47, 134 (2010) 721 BAD ARGUMENTS AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE, 7 Fla. Coastal L. Rev. 181, 220+ (2005) 722 THE MASSACHUSETTS EXPERIENCE: ATTEMPTING TO AMEND ITS STATE CONSTITUTION REGARDING MARRIAGE?, 7 Fla. Coastal L. Rev. 221, 232+ (2005) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 723 MARRIAGE AMENDMENTS AND THE READER IN BAD FAITH, 7 Fla. Coastal L. Rev. 233, 253+ (2005) HN: 38 (N.E.2d) 724 MARRIAGE AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FREE SEX: THE STATE MARRIAGE AMENDMENTS AS RESPONSE, 7 Fla. Coastal L. Rev. 271, 338+ (2005) HN: 17,22,34 (N.E.2d) 725 STATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS PROHIBITING SAME-SEX UNIONS: WINNING THE "DUAL OBJECT" ARGUMENT, 7 Fla. Coastal L. Rev. 339, 363+ (2005) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 726 STATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS DEFINING MARRIAGE: ON PROTECTIONS, RESTRICTIONS, AND CREDIBILITY, 7 Fla. Coastal L. Rev. 365, 387+ (2005) HN: 31,36 (N.E.2d) 727 MARRIAGE AND BANKING: EXAMINING MISCEGENATION LAWS TO TEST THE PROPOSITION THAT LOVING V. VIRGINIA LEADS TO GOODRIDGE V. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 7 Fla. Coastal L. Rev. 389, 402+ (2005) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 728 STATE MARRIAGE AMENDMENTS: DEVELOPMENTS, PRECEDENTS, AND SIGNIFICANCE, 7 Fla. Coastal L. Rev. 403, 448+ (2005) HN: 38 (N.E.2d) 729 STATE MARRIAGE AMENDMENTS, ESSENTIALIST ARGUMENTS, AND THE NON-ESSENTIAL WOMAN, 7 Fla. Coastal L. Rev. 453, 472+ (2005) 730 A PREFACE TO WORLD GOVERNMENT: A COMPARISON OF THE CURRENT STATE OF INTERNATIONAL GOVERNANCE WITH THE STATE OF GOVERNANCE THAT FOLLOWED ADOPTION OF THE AMERICAN ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION, 27 Conn. J. Int'l L. 1, 37 (2011) HN: 2,6,34 (N.E.2d) 731 COMMON LAW SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 43 Conn. L. Rev. 931, 947+ (2011)
HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 732 FROM SEPARATE TO EQUAL: LITIGATING MARRIAGE EQUALITY IN A CIVIL UNION STATE, 41 Conn. L. Rev. 1381, 1396 (2009) 733 MARRIAGE AS MONOPOLY: HISTORY, TRADITION, INCREMENTALISM, AND THE MARRIAGE/CIVIL UNION DISTINCTION, 41 Conn. L. Rev. 1397, 1424+ (2009) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 734 NAME CALLING: IDENTIFYING STIGMA IN THE "CIVIL UNION"/"MARRIAGE" DISTINCTION, 41 Conn. L. Rev. 1425, 1494+ (2009) 735 CHANGING THE IMMUTABLE, 41 Conn. L. Rev. 1495, 1522+ (2009) HN: 32,34 (N.E.2d) 736 SEXUAL POLITICS AND SOCIAL CHANGE, 41 Conn. L. Rev. 1523, 1547 (2009) 737 NEVER GET OUT'A THE BOAT STENBERG V. CARHART AND THE FUTURE OF AMERICAN LAW, 39 Conn. L. Rev. 297, 323 (2006) 738 A "PINK" HERRING: THE PROSPECT OF POLYGAMY FOLLOWING THE LEGALIZATION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 38 Conn. L. Rev. 1065, 1111+ (2006) HN: 15,34,36 (N.E.2d) 739 "GHOSTS THAT SLAY": A CONTEMPORARY LOOK AT STATE ADVISORY OPINIONS, 37 Conn. L. Rev. 1155, 1176+ (2005) HN: 24,37 (N.E.2d) 740 APPROACHING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: HOW SECOND PARENT ADOPTION CASES CAN HELP COURTS ACHIEVE THE "BEST INTERESTS OF THE SAME-SEX FAMILY", 36 Conn. L. Rev. 1439, 1440+ (2004) HN: 15,31,36 (N.E.2d) 741 UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES: THE RAMIFICATIONS OF DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE AMENDMENTS TO STATE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LAWS: NORTH CAROLINA AND OHIO, 14 Geo. J. Gender & L. 749, 767 (2013) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 742 ADOPTION AND FOSTER CARE, 14 Geo. J. Gender & L. 281, 317 (2013) HN: 14 (N.E.2d) 743 EQUAL PROTECTION, 14 Geo. J. Gender & L. 397, 442+ (2013) HN: 34,36,42 (N.E.2d) 744 LEGAL RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS, 14 Geo. J. Gender & L. 517, 531+ (2013) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 745 PROCREATIVE SEX AND SAME SEX PARENTS, 13 Geo. J. Gender & L. 591, 597+ (2012) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 746 LEGAL RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS, 13 Geo. J. Gender & L. 365, 373+ (2012) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 747 SEXUAL PRIVACY AFTER LAWRENCE v. TEXAS, 13 Geo. J. Gender & L. 487, 513+ (2012) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 748 EQUAL PROTECTION, 12 Geo. J. Gender & L. 281, 324+ (2011) HN: 34,36,42
(N.E.2d) 749 SEXUAL PRIVACY AFTER LAWRENCE v. TEXAS, 12 Geo. J. Gender & L. 333, 358+ (2011) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 750 ADOPTION AND FOSTER CARE, 12 Geo. J. Gender & L. 409, 448 (2011) HN: 14 (N.E.2d) 751 CHILD CUSTODY, VISITATION AND TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS, 12 Geo. J. Gender & L. 449, 492 (2011) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 752 MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE, 12 Geo. J. Gender & L. 493, 520+ (2011) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 753 LEGAL RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS, 12 Geo. J. Gender & L. 521, 529+ (2011) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 754 LEGAL RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS, 11 Geo. J. Gender & L. 1, 2+ (2010) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 755 EQUAL PROTECTION, 10 Geo. J. Gender & L. 227, 269+ (2009) HN: 34,36,42 (N.E.2d) 756 SEXUAL PRIVACY AFTER LAWRENCE v. TEXAS, 10 Geo. J. Gender & L. 297, 322+ (2009) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 757 ADOPTION AND FOSTER CARE, 10 Geo. J. Gender & L. 673, 711 (2009) HN: 14 (N.E.2d) 758 CHILD CUSTODY, VISITATION & TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS, 10 Geo. J. Gender & L. 713, 750+ (2009) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 759 LEGAL RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS, 10 Geo. J. Gender & L. 751, 753+ (2009) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 760 MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE, 10 Geo. J. Gender & L. 801, 825+ (2009) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 761 PRIVACY IN PUERTO RICO AND THE MADMAN'S PLIGHT: DECISIONS, 9 Geo. J. Gender & L. 1, 113+ (2008) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 762 THE PERILS OF MARRIAGE AS TRANSCENDENT ONTOLOGY: NATIONAL PRIDE AT WORK v. GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN, 9 Geo. J. Gender & L. 279, 320 (2008) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 763 EQUAL PROTECTION, 9 Geo. J. Gender & L. 495, 538+ (2008) HN: 34,36,42 (N.E.2d) 764 SEXUAL PRIVACY AFTER LAWRENCE v. TEXAS, 9 Geo. J. Gender & L. 561, 585+ (2008) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 765 ADOPTION AND FOSTER CARE, 9 Geo. J. Gender & L. 927, 962 (2008) HN: 14 (N.E.2d) 766 CHILD CUSTODY, VISITATION AND TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS, 9 Geo. J. Gender & L. 963, 999+ (2008) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 767 MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE, 9 Geo. J. Gender & L. 1017, 1029+ (2008) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 768 RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 9 Geo. J. Gender & L. 1031,
1033+ (2008) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 769 EQUAL PROTECTION, 8 Geo. J. Gender & L. 145, 182+ (2007) HN: 31,34,42 (N.E.2d) 770 SEXUAL PRIVACY AFTER LAWRENCE v. TEXAS, 8 Geo. J. Gender & L. 203, 227+ (2007) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 771 ADOPTION AND FOSTER CARE, 8 Geo. J. Gender & L. 583, 618 (2007) HN: 14 (N.E.2d) 772 CHILD CUSTODY, VISITATION AND TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS, 8 Geo. J. Gender & L. 619, 655+ (2007) HN: 2,34 (N.E.2d) 773 MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE, 8 Geo. J. Gender & L. 669, 681+ (2007) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 774 RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 8 Geo. J. Gender & L. 683, 685+ (2007) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 775 SEXUAL PRIVACY AFTER LAWRENCE, 7 Geo. J. Gender & L. 723, 745+ (2006) 776 CHILD CUSTODY AND VISITATION, 7 Geo. J. Gender & L. 1017, 1031 (2006) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 777 FEDERAL REGULATION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 7 Geo. J. Gender & L. 1055, 1062+ (2006) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 778 STATE REGULATION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 7 Geo. J. Gender & L. 1079, 1080+ (2006) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 779 A LEGAL REMEDY FOR HOMOPHOBIA: FINDING A CURE IN THE INTERNATIONAL RIGHT TO HEALTH, 6 Geo. J. Gender & L. 21, 46+ (2005) 780 UNMASKING THE FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT: THE STATUS OF SEXUALITY, 6 Geo. J. Gender & L. 105, 130+ (2005) 781 EQUAL PROTECTION, 6 Geo. J. Gender & L. 249, 287+ (2005) HN: 31,34,42 (N.E.2d) 782 SEXUAL PRIVACY AFTER LAWRENCE: CO-HABITATION, SODOMY, AND ADULTERY, 6 Geo. J. Gender & L. 379, 385+ (2005) HN: 2,6,34 (N.E.2d) 783 ADOPTION AND FOSTER CARE, 6 Geo. J. Gender & L. 667, 689 (2005) HN: 14 (N.E.2d) 784 CHILD CUSTODY AND VISITATION, 6 Geo. J. Gender & L. 691, 718+ (2005) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 785 MARRIAGE, 6 Geo. J. Gender & L. 719, 729+ (2005) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 786 SAME-SEX COUPLES: MARRIAGE, CIVIL UNIONS, AND DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS, 6 Geo. J. Gender & L. 731, 739+ (2005) HN: 33,34,36 (N.E.2d) 787 SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS, 5 Geo. J. Gender & L. 545, 555+ (2004) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 788 ASSESSING AND RESPONDING TO SAME-SEX "MARRIAGE" IN LIGHT
OF NATURAL LAW, 3 Geo. J. L. & Pub. Pol'y 523, 539 (2005) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 789 "DIVIDED AMERICA" AND THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL TRADITION, 3 Geo. J. L. & Pub. Pol'y 1, 11+ (2005) HN: 15,34,36 (N.E.2d) 790 HOW LAW CAN REINVIGORATE A ROBUST VISION OF MARRIAGE AND RIVAL ITS POST-MODERN COMPETITOR, 2 Geo. J. L. & Pub. Pol'y 449, 467 (2004) 791 THE "WITHERING AWAY" OF MARRIAGE: SOME LESSONS FROM THE BOLSHEVIK FAMILY LAW REFORMS IN RUSSIA, 1917-1926, 2 Geo. J. L. & Pub. Pol'y 469, 505+ (2004) HN: 2,42 (N.E.2d) 792 ABORTION AND ORIGINAL MEANING, 24 Const. Comment. 291, 352 (2007) HN: 37 (N.E.2d) 793 ELIZABETH CADY STANTON ON THE FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT: A LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT, 22 Const. Comment. 137, 159 (2005) 794 DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS AND CIVIL UNIONS, 61 Consumer Fin. L.Q. Rep. 520, 526 (2007) 795 THE HORIZON OF RIGHTS: LESSONS FROM SOUTH AFRICA FOR THE POST-GOODRIDGE ANALYSIS OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 40 Cornell Int'l L.J. 781, 804+ (2007) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 796 FROM NONDISCRIMINATION TO CIVIL MARRIAGE, 19 Cornell J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 383, 428+ (2010) HN: 31,42 (N.E.2d) 797 INSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS, POLITICS, AND GOOD FAITH: A CASE STUDY OF SCHOOL FINANCE REFORM IN MASSACHUSETTS, 17 Cornell J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 621, 681 (2008) 798 SAME-SEX SECOND-PARENT ADOPTION AND INTESTACY LAW: APPLYING THE SHARON S. MODEL OF "SIMULTANEOUS" ADOPTION TO PARENT-CHILD PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFORM PROBATE CODE, 96 Cornell L. Rev. 139, 167+ (2010) HN: 32,34 (N.E.2d) 799 ELECTING FEDERAL JUDGES AND JUSTICES: SHOULD THE SUPRALEGISLATORS BE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE VOTERS?, 39 Creighton L. Rev. 695, 739 (2006) 800 NEBRASKA CHOICE OF LAW: A SYNTHESIS, 39 Creighton L. Rev. 1, 28 (2006) HN: 38 (N.E.2d) 801 REVISITING STATE MARRIAGE RECOGNITION PROVISIONS, 38 Creighton L. Rev. 233, 269+ (2005) 802 OUR UNWRITTEN CONSTITUTION AND PROPOSALS FOR A SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AMENDMENT, 38 Creighton L. Rev. 271, 288 (2005) HN: 38 (N.E.2d) 803 WHEN IS A SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LEGAL? FULL FAITH AND CREDIT AND SEX DETERMINATION, 38 Creighton L. Rev. 289, 307+ (2005)
804 A STANDARD FORM APPROACH TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 38 Creighton L. Rev. 309, 335+ (2005) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 805 NON-RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE JUDGMENTS UNDER DOMA AND THE CONSTITUTION, 38 Creighton L. Rev. 365, 420+ (2005) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 806 "DEFENDING" MARRIAGE IN LIGHT OF THE MORENOCLEBURNE-ROMER-LAWRENCE JURISPRUDENCE: WHY DOMA CANNOT PASS MUSTER AFTER LAWRENCE, 38 Creighton L. Rev. 421, 447 (2005) 807 EXAMINING A STRAND OF THE PUBLIC POLICY EXCEPTION WITH CONSTITUTIONAL UNDERPINNINGS: HOW THE "FOREIGN MARRIAGE RECOGNITION EXCEPTION" AFFECTS THE INTERJURISDICTIONAL RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX "MARRIAGE", 38 Creighton L. Rev. 449, 464 (2005) 808 FULL FAITH AND CREDIT FOR DUMMIES, 38 Creighton L. Rev. 465, 491+ (2005) 809 WRITING ON, AROUND, AND THROUGH LAWRENCE V. TEXAS, 38 Creighton L. Rev. 493, 506+ (2005) HN: 15,22 (N.E.2d) 810 THE RETREAT FROM DOMA: THE PUBLIC POLICY OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND A THEORY OF CONGRESSIONAL POWER UNDER THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE, 38 Creighton L. Rev. 507, 532+ (2005) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 811 LARRY KRAMER, SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, AND THE POLITICS OF LEGAL SCHOLARSHIP, 38 Creighton L. Rev. 533, 543 (2005) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 812 FOREWORD, 38 Creighton L. Rev. VII, x (2005) 813 A STATE'S CHALLENGE TO DOMA: FEDERALISM AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, 5 Alb. Gov't L. Rev. 422, 439+ (2012) HN: 34,36,42 (N.E.2d) 814 A RIGHT TO A WORD? THE INTERPLAY OF EQUAL PROTECTION AND FREEDOM OF THOUGHT IN THE MOVE TO GENDER-BLIND MARRIAGE, 5 Alb. Gov't L. Rev. 552, 612 (2012) HN: 32,34,36 (N.E.2d) 815 THE NEW YORK MARRIAGE EQUALITY ACT AND THE INCOME TAX, 5 Alb. Gov't L. Rev. 634, 650+ (2012) HN: 2,6,34 (N.E.2d) 816 AN ORAL HISTORY OF THE MARRIAGE EQUALITY ACT IN NEW YORK, 5 Alb. Gov't L. Rev. 651, 684 (2012) HN: 2,6,34 (N.E.2d) 817 LGBT NEW YORK LEGISLATION, 4 Alb. Gov't L. Rev. 625, 640 (2011) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 818 LANDMARK DECISION OR LIMITED PRECEDENT: DOES LAWRENCE V. TEXAS REQUIRE RECOGNITION OF A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE?, 35 Cumb. L. Rev. 147, 176+ (2005) HN: 31,34,36 (N.E.2d)
819 BOOK REVIEW: MEN IN BLACK, 73 Def. Couns. J. 82, 90 (2006) 820 JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE AND THE RULE OF LAW: A WARNING FROM IOWA, 29-SUM Del. Law. 16, 16 (2011) 821 WORK WIVES, 36 Harv. J. L. & Gender 345, 404+ (2013) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 822 TRANSGENDERLESS, 35 Harv. J. L. & Gender 399, 422 (2012) 823 UNSEX MOTHERING: TOWARD A NEW CULTURE OF PARENTING, 35 Harv. J. L. & Gender 57, 116+ (2012) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 824 TITLE VII: A SHIFT FROM SEX TO RELATIONSHIPS, 35 Harv. J. L. & Gender 209, 262 (2012) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 825 GIVE JUSTICE GINSBURG WHAT SHE WANTS: USING SEX EQUALITY ARGUMENTS TO DEMAND EXAMINATION OF THE LEGITIMACY OF STATE INTERESTS IN ABORTION REGULATION, 34 Harv. J. L. & Gender 377, 412 (2011) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 826 SKEPTICAL MARRIAGE EQUALITY, 34 Harv. J. L. & Gender 37, 80+ (2011) 827 LGBT ELDER LAW: TOWARD EQUITY IN AGING, 32 Harv. J. L. & Gender 1, 58+ (2009) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 828 SELECTIVE RECOGNITION OF GENDER DIFFERENCE IN THE LAW: REVALUING THE CARETAKER ROLE, 31 Harv. J. L. & Gender 1, 66 (2008) 829 EXPOSING SEX STEREOTYPES IN RECENT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE JURISPRUDENCE, 30 Harv. J. L. & Gender 461, 505+ (2007) HN: 31,32,34 (N.E.2d) 830 MARRIAGE AND THE ELEPHANT: THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC STATE'S REGULATION OF INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ADULTS, 30 Harv. J. L. & Gender 25, 66+ (2007) 831 TITLE IX: BEYOND EQUAL PROTECTION, 28 Harv. J. L. & Gender 217, 283 (2005) 832 TRAVEL INSURANCE: PROTECTING LESBIAN AND GAY PARENT FAMILIES ACROSS STATE LINES, 4 Harv. L. & Pol'y Rev. 31, 48 (2010) 833 NOT OLD OR BORROWED: THE TRULY NEW BLUE FEDERALISM, 3 Harv. L. & Pol'y Rev. 33, 57+ (2009) 834 EQUALITY IN THE GARDEN STATE: LITIGATION AND SOCIAL ACTIVISM IN THE STRUGGLE FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY, 2 Harv. L. & Pol'y Rev. 419, 428+ (2008) 835 GOVERNMENT LAWYER AS CAUSE LAWYER: A STUDY OF THREE HIGH PROFILE GOVERNMENT LAWSUITS, 86 Denv. U. L. Rev. 457, 508 (2009) 836 THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY, 84 Denv. U. L. Rev. 601, 644+ (2006) 837 GOODRIDGE V. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH: THE WRONG STEP AT THE WRONG TIME FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGES, 82 Denv. U. L. Rev.
109, 109+ (2004) HN: 34,36,42 (N.E.2d) 838 IN SEARCH OF TRADITION: GOODRIDGE V. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 82 Denv. U. L. Rev. 79, 79+ (2004) HN: 32,34,36 (N.E.2d) 839 FRACTURED BONDS: POLICING WHITENESS AND WOMANHOOD THROUGH RACE-BASED MARRIAGE ANNULMENTS, 58 DePaul L. Rev. 1, 50+ (2008) 840 THE BIOLOGICAL CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR AND THEIR RELEVANCE FOR FAMILY LAW POLICIES, 56 DePaul L. Rev. 997, 1033 (2007) 841 PRIVACY AND THE DEBATE OVER SAME-SEX MARRIAGE VERSUS UNIONS, 54 DePaul L. Rev. 783, 804+ (2005) 842 THE NEW STORM OF MONEY AND POLITICS AROUND JUDICIAL RETENTION ELECTIONS, 60 Drake L. Rev. 703, 713 (2012) HN: 2,34 (N.E.2d) 843 DOMA AND THE CONSTITUTION, 58 Drake L. Rev. 1011, 1035+ (2010) HN: 11 (N.E.2d) 844 WHO SHOULD BE ALLOWED INTO THE MARRIAGE FRANCHISE?, 58 Drake L. Rev. 1043, 1075 (2010) 845 THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF MARRIAGE FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES, 58 Drake L. Rev. 1081, 1116 (2010) 846 DOMA, ROMER, AND RATIONALITY, 58 Drake L. Rev. 923, 950+ (2010) 847 SECTION THREE OF THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT: DECIDING, DEMOCRACY, AND THE CONSTITUTION, 58 Drake L. Rev. 951, 992+ (2010) 848 FOREWORD, 54 Drake L. Rev. 791, 794 (2006) 849 COURTING DISASTER: LOOKING FOR CHANGE IN ALL THE WRONG PLACES, 54 Drake L. Rev. 795, 815+ (2006) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 850 PHILOSOPHER KING COURTS: IS THE EXERCISE OF HIGHER LAW AUTHORITY WITHOUT A HIGHER LAW FOUNDATION LEGITIMATE?, 54 Drake L. Rev. 831, 847+ (2006) HN: 2,5 (N.E.2d) 851 SEXUAL ORIENTATION, SOCIAL CHANGE, AND THE COURTS, 54 Drake L. Rev. 861, 883+ (2006) 852 WILL THE TOWER TOPPLE? THE FUTURE OF MORALITY AS A LEGITIMATE STATE INTEREST ARGUMENT IN HOMOSEXUAL LEGAL ISSUES, 53 Drake L. Rev. 1063, 1097+ (2005) HN: 31,42 (N.E.2d) 853 LAWRENCE BEYOND GAY RIGHTS: TAKING THE RATIONALITY REQUIREMENT FOR JUSTIFYING CRIMINAL STATUTES SERIOUSLY, 53 Drake L. Rev. 231, 279 (2005) 854 THE INSURABLE INTEREST REQUIREMENT FOR LIFE INSURANCE: A CRITICAL REASSESSMENT, 53 Drake L. Rev. 477, 543 (2005) 855 FRAMING PREGLIMONY: EXPLORING THE IMPLICATIONS OF
PREGNANCY SUPPORT MODELS THROUGH FAMILY LAW VALUES, 20 Duke J. Gender L. & Pol'y 325, 350 (2013) HN: 7 (N.E.2d) 856 FROM ROMER V. EVANS TO UNITED STATES V. WINDSOR: LAW AS A VEHICLE FOR MORAL DISAPPROVAL IN AMENDMENT 2 AND THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT, 20 Duke J. Gender L. & Pol'y 351, 416+ (2013) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 857 THE ROLE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE IN JUDICIAL DECISION MAKING: HOW GAY RIGHTS ADVOCATES CAN LEARN FROM INTEGRATION AND CAPITAL PUNISHMENT CASE LAW, 19 Duke J. Gender L. & Pol'y 179, 222+ (2011) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 858 THE WOMEN'S CONVENTION, REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS, AND THE REPRODUCTION OF GENDER, 18 Duke J. Gender L. & Pol'y 261, 304+ (2011) HN: 2,34 (N.E.2d) 859 THE STATE OF SURROGACY LAWS: DETERMINING LEGAL PARENTAGE FOR GAY FATHERS, 18 Duke J. Gender L. & Pol'y 353, 386+ (2011) HN: 2,6,34 (N.E.2d) 860 INCREMENTALISM, CIVIL UNIONS, AND THE POSSIBILITY OF PREDICTING LEGAL RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 18 Duke J. Gender L. & Pol'y 105, 161+ (2010) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 861 LIFE AFTER DOMA, 17 Duke J. Gender L. & Pol'y 399, 424+ (2010) 862 WHAT'S LOVE GOT TO DO WITH IT? A PROPOSAL FOR ELEVATING THE STATUS OF MARRIAGE BY NARROWING ITS DEFINITION, WHILE UNIVERSALLY EXTENDING THE RIGHTS AND BENEFITS ENJOYED BY MARRIED COUPLES, 16 Duke J. Gender L. & Pol'y 37, 87+ (2009) HN: 15,31,42 (N.E.2d) 863 CAUGHT IN THE CROSSFIRE: HOW CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF BOSTON WAS VICTIM TO THE CLASH BETWEEN GAY RIGHTS AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, 15 Duke J. Gender L. & Pol'y 297, 314+ (2008) 864 "TALKING ABOUT SEXUAL ORIENTATION, TEACHING ABOUT HOMOPHOBIA'-NEGOTIATING THE DIVIDE BETWEEN RELIGIOUS BELIEF AND TOLERANCE FOR LGBT RIGHTS IN THE CLASSROOM, 15 Duke J. Gender L. & Pol'y 399, 417 (2008) 865 "LOVE FOR SALE" -SEX AND THE SECOND AMERICAN REVOLUTION, 15 Duke J. Gender L. & Pol'y 49, 125+ (2008) 866 SILENT SACRIFICES: THE IMPACT OF "DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL" ON LESBIAN AND GAY MILITARY FAMILIES, 14 Duke J. Gender L. & Pol'y 1121, 1139 (2007) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 867 PRESERVATIONISM, OR THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM: HOW OPPONENTS OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE DECEIVE US INTO ESTABLISHING RELIGION, 14 Duke J. Gender L. & Pol'y 561, 679+ (2007) HN: 15,31,42 (N.E.2d) 868 INFERRING DESIRE, 63 Duke L.J. 525, 635 (2013) HN: 2,34 (N.E.2d)
869 EXIT, VOICE, AND DISLOYALTY, 62 Duke L.J. 1349, 1386 (2013) HN: 6 (N.E.2d) 870 A QUEST FOR FAIR AND BALANCED: THE SUPREME COURT, STATE COURTS, AND THE FUTURE OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE REVIEW AFTER PERRY, 60 Duke L.J. 1413, 1458+ (2011) HN: 31,36 (N.E.2d) 871 WHEN INSIDERS BECOME OUTSIDERS: PARENTAL OBJECTIONS TO PUBLIC SCHOOL SEX EDUCATION PROGRAMS, 59 Duke L.J. 109, 144 (2009) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 872 REPAIRING FAMILY LAW, 57 Duke L.J. 1245, 1319 (2008) 873 GAY RIGHTS AND AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONALISM: WHAT'S A CONSTITUTION FOR?, 56 Duke L.J. 545, 581+ (2006) HN: 31,32,38 (N.E.2d) 874 POLYGAMY AS A RED HERRING IN THE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE DEBATE, 54 Duke L.J. 1665, 1693+ (2005) HN: 31,32,33 (N.E.2d) 875 FEDERALISM IN THE UNITED STATES, 43 Duq. L. Rev. 519, 538 (2005) 876 PARENTAL RIGHTS OF GAY AND LESBIAN COUPLES: WILL LEGALIZING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE MAKE A DIFFERENCE?, 43 Duq. L. Rev. 273, 273+ (2005) HN: 17,31,36 (N.E.2d) 877 "GEN SILENT": ADVOCATING FOR LGBT ELDERS, 19 Elder L.J. 289, 349+ (2012) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 878 PROTECTING THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF LGBT PEOPLE IN UGANDA IN THE WAKE OF UGANDA'S "ANTI HOMOSEXUALITY BILL, 2009", 25 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 1263, 1316+ (2011) 879 THE LEGAL MOBILIZATION DILEMMA, 61 Emory L.J. 663, 736+ (2012) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 880 FAMILIAL NORMS AND NORMALITY, 59 Emory L.J. 1103, 1169+ (2010) 881 SEX IN AND OUT OF INTIMACY, 59 Emory L.J. 809, 868 (2010) 882 A HOLY SECULAR INSTITUTION, 58 Emory L.J. 1123, 1194+ (2009) 883 I OBJECT: THE RLUIPA AS A MODEL FOR PROTECTING THE CONSCIENCE RIGHTS OF RELIGIOUS OBJECTORS TO SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS, 59 Emory L.J. 259, 309+ (2009) 884 HETEROSEXUAL REPRODUCTIVE IMPERATIVES, 56 Emory L.J. 1157, 1172+ (2007) 885 LAWRENCE V. GEDULDIG: REGULATING WOMEN'S SEXUALITY, 56 Emory L.J. 1235, 1303 (2007) 886 THE "MALE PROBLEMATIC" AND THE PROBLEMS OF FAMILY LAW: A RESPONSE TO DON BROWNING'S "CRITICAL FAMILISM", 56 Emory L.J. 1407, 1429 (2007) HN: 15 (N.E.2d) 887 INTRODUCTION: THE PAST AS PROLOGUE, 54 Emory L.J. 1219, 1229+ (2005) HN: 15 (N.E.2d) 888 HOMOSEXUALITY'S HORIZON, 54 Emory L.J. 1361, 1406+ (2005) HN: 15,31,32 (N.E.2d)
889 ADOPTING LAWRENCE: LAWRENCE V. TEXAS AND DISCRIMINATORY ADOPTION LAWS, 53 Emory L.J. 1491, 1531+ (2004) HN: 17 (N.E.2d) 890 SAME SEX MARRIAGE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR EMPLOYEE BENEFITS: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2005 MEETING OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN LAW SCHOOLS SECTIONS ON EMPLOYEE BENEFITS, AND SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY ISSUES, 9 Employee Rts. & Emp. Pol'y J. 499, 520 (2005) 891 THE M WORD, 4 Hum. Rts. & Globalization L. Rev. 3, 59 (2011) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 892 UPDATE ON EVOLVING LEGAL STATUS OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGES, 37 Est. Plan. 21, 30 (2010) 893 ESTATE PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS FOR UNMARRIED COHABITANTS, 31 Est. Plan. 307, 312+ (2004) HN: 33,42 (N.E.2d) 894 THE EVOLUTION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 32-WTR Fam. Advoc. 8, 9 (2010) 895 THE TOPOGRAPHY OF LEGAL RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS, 50 Fam. Ct. Rev. 181, 199 (2012) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 896 MARRIAGE: CIVIL, RELIGIOUS, CONTRACTUAL, AND MORE, 50 Fam. Ct. Rev. 222, 222+ (2012) HN: 7 (N.E.2d) 897 SKEPTICISM BORDERING ON DISTRUST: FAMILY LAW IN THE HOLLYWOOD CINEMA, 50 Fam. Ct. Rev. 13, 21 (2012) HN: 2,34 (N.E.2d) 898 "I WANT MY MOMMIES": THE CRY FOR MINI-DOMAS TO RECOGNIZE THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN OF SAME-SEX COUPLES, 45 Fam. Ct. Rev. 287, 297 (2007) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 899 SOLVING THE FAMILY COURT PUZZLE: INTEGRATING RESEARCH, POLICY, AND PRACTICE Opening Remarks to the 42nd Annual Conference of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, 44 Fam. Ct. Rev. 190, 197 (2006) 900 THE EVOLUTION-OR END-OF MARRIAGE?: REFLECTIONS ON THE IMPASSE OVER SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 44 Fam. Ct. Rev. 200, 200+ (2006) HN: 32,34,36 (N.E.2d) 901 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN SAME-GENDER RELATIONSHIPS, 44 Fam. Ct. Rev. 287, 287+ (2006) 902 PREFACE, 44 Fam. Ct. Rev. 31, 32 (2006) 903 THE RIGHT TO MARRY AND THE SAN FRANCISCO EXPERIENCE, 44 Fam. Ct. Rev. 33, 36+ (2006) HN: 17,36,42 (N.E.2d) 904 THE "END" OF MARRIAGE, 44 Fam. Ct. Rev. 45, 45+ (2006) HN: 31,34,36 (N.E.2d) 905 MARRIAGE IN CANADA-EVOLUTION OR REVOLUTION?, 44 Fam. Ct. Rev. 60, 70+ (2006) 906 CHILDREN OF SAME-SEX PARENTS DESERVE THE SECURITY
BLANKET OF THE PARENTAGE PRESUMPTION, 44 Fam. Ct. Rev. 74, 79+ (2006) HN: 33,34 (N.E.2d) 907 SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE: A PROPOSAL FOR CHILD CUSTODY MEDIATION, 44 Fam. Ct. Rev. 87, 91+ (2006) HN: 17,32,34 (N.E.2d) 908 SANFORD N. KATZ, FAMILY LAW IN AMERICA, XIX-268. OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, 2003, 43 Fam. Ct. Rev. 178, 179 (2005) 909 MARRIAGE AT THE CROSSROADS: LAW, POLICY AND THE BRAVE NEW WORLD OF TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY FAMILIES (MARSHA GARRISON & ELIZABETH SCOTT EDS.), 47 Fam. L.Q. 311, 325 (2013) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 910 A TALE OF TWO FAMILIES-RED FAMILIES v. BLUE FAMILIES: LEGAL POLARIZATION AND THE CREATION OF CULTURE BY NAOMI CAHN & JUNE CARBONE, 44 Fam. L.Q. 375, 390 (2010) HN: 32 (N.E.2d) 911 THE SPACE BETWEEN: THE COOPERATIVE REGULATION OF CRIMINAL LAW AND FAMILY LAW, 44 Fam. L.Q. 227, 254 (2010) 912 SECOND-CLASS FAMILIES: INTERSTATE RECOGNITION OF QUEER ADOPTION, 43 Fam. L.Q. 161, 180 (2009) 913 GOLDEN ANNIVERSARY REFLECTIONS: CHANGES IN MARRIAGE AFTER FIFTY YEARS, 42 Fam. L.Q. 333, 352 (2008) 914 PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF RELATIONSHIPS AMONG ADULTS, 41 Fam. L.Q. 433, 453 (2007) 915 A WORLD WITHOUT MARRIAGE, 41 Fam. L.Q. 537, 541+ (2007) HN: 15,31 (N.E.2d) 916 MY TWO DADS: CHALLENGING GENDER STEREOTYPES IN APPLYING CALIFORNIA'S RECENT SUPREME COURT CASES TO GAY COUPLES, 41 Fam. L.Q. 623, 638 (2007) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 917 EQUAL PROTECTION FOR HUMAN CLONES A REVIEW OF ILLEGAL BEINGS: HUMAN CLONES AND THE LAW BY KERRY MACINTOSH, 40 Fam. L.Q. 529, 544+ (2006) 918 PHILOSOPHY, MORALITY, AND PARENTAL PRIORITY, 40 Fam. L.Q. 7, 22 (2006) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 919 STEPPARENTS AS THIRD PARTIES IN RELATION TO THEIR STEPCHILDREN, 40 Fam. L.Q. 81, 108 (2006) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 920 POSTHUMOUS REPRODUCTION, 39 Fam. L.Q. 579, 597 (2005) HN: 12 (N.E.2d) 921 AUTONOMY, PROTECTION, AND INCREMENTAL DEVELOPMENT IN FAMILY LAW A REVIEW OF FAMILY LAW IN AMERICA BY SANFORD N. KATZ, 39 Fam. L.Q. 805, 809+ (2005) 922 NEW YORK'S RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGES, 39 Fam. L.Q. 841, 853+ (2005) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d)
923 A REVIEW OF THE YEAR IN FAMILY LAW: "SAME-SEX" MARRIAGE ISSUE DOMINATES HEADLINES, 38 Fam. L.Q. 777, 808+ (2005) 924 THE LEGALITY OF POLYGAMY: USING THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, 38 Fam. L.Q. 711, 731+ (2004) HN: 15 (N.E.2d) 925 AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION: MARITAL COUNSELING LAWS AS AN ANTI-DIVORCE MEASURE, 38 Fam. L.Q. 733, 751 (2004) 926 A WHITE PAPER: AN ANALYSIS OF THE LAW REGARDING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, CIVIL UNIONS, AND DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS, 38 Fam. L.Q. 339, 347+ (2004) HN: 32,34,36 (N.E.2d) 927 SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: THE CULTURAL WARS AND THE LESSONS OF LEGAL HISTORY, 38 Fam. L.Q. 427, 427+ (2004) HN: 15,31,32 (N.E.2d) 928 AN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVE ON THE DEBATE OVER THE HARMONISATION OR UNIFICATION OF FAMILY LAW IN EUROPE, BOOK REVIEW OF PERSPECTIVES ON THE UNIFICATION AND HARMONISATION OF FAMILY LAW IN EUROPE, 38 Fam. L.Q. 185, 205+ (2004) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 929 A REVIEW OF THE YEAR IN FAMILY LAW: CHILDREN'S ISSUES REMAIN THE FOCUS, 37 Fam. L.Q. 527, 575+ (2004) 930 ILLEGITIMATE HARM: LAW, STIGMA, AND DISCRIMINATION AGAINST NONMARITAL CHILDREN, 63 Fla. L. Rev. 345, 394+ (2011) 931 RESOLVING INTERSTATE CONFLICTS OVER SAME-SEX NONMARRIAGE, 63 Fla. L. Rev. 47, 96 (2011) 932 THE LAVENDER LETTER: (FNaa1) APPLYING THE LAW OF ADULTERY TO SAME-SEX COUPLES AND SAME-SEX CONDUCT, 63 Fla. L. Rev. 97, 127+ (2011) 933 COUNTER-MAJORITARIAN POWER AND JUDGES' POLITICAL SPEECH, 58 Fla. L. Rev. 53, 118+ (2006) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 934 BODY POLITICS: LAWRENCE V. TEXAS AND THE CONSTITUTION OF DISGUST AND CONTAGION, 57 Fla. L. Rev. 1011, 1064+ (2005) 935 "NOT THE LAW'S BUSINESS:" THE POLITICS OF TOLERANCE AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF MORALITY, 57 Fla. L. Rev. 1097, 1133+ (2005) HN: 17 (N.E.2d) 936 DISSENTING FROM WITHIN: WHY AND HOW PUBLIC OFFICIALS RESIST THE LAW, 40 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 601, 657+ (2013) 937 THE TERMS OF THE DEBATE: LITIGATION, ARGUMENTATIVE STRATEGIES, AND COALITIONS IN THE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE STRUGGLE, 39 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 467, 510+ (2012) HN: 2,6,34 (N.E.2d) 938 TRANSGRESSIVE CAREGIVING, 33 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 1, 87+ (2005) HN: 31,34 (N.E.2d) 939 ONE FLESH, TWO TAXPAYERS: A NEW APPROACH TO MARRIAGE
AND WEALTH TRANSFER TAXATION, 6 Fla. Tax Rev. 757, 806 (2004) 940 REASON WITHOUT BORDERS: HOW TRANSNATIONAL VALUES CANNOT BE CONTAINED, 28 Fordham Int'l L.J. 1595, 1644+ (2005) 941 SUBSIDIZING HATE: A PROPOSAL TO REFORM THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE'S METHODOLOGY TEST, 17 Fordham Journal of Corporate and Financial Law 823+ (2012) 942 ENRON, DOMA, AND SPOUSAL PRIVILEGES: RETHINKING THE MARRIAGE PLOT, 81 Fordham L. Rev. 715, 730+ (2012) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 943 "TWO PARTS OF THE LANDSCAPE OF FAMILY IN AMERICA": MAINTAINING BOTH SPOUSAL AND DOMESTIC PARTNER EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FOR BOTH SAME-SEX AND DIFFERENT-SEX COUPLES, 81 Fordham L. Rev. 735, 755+ (2012) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 944 INVOLUNTARY IMPORTS: WILLIAMS, LUTWAK, THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT, FEDERALISM, AND "THICK" AND "THIN" CONCEPTIONS OF MARRIAGE, 81 Fordham L. Rev. 771, 815+ (2012) 945 HOW THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE CAN INFLUENCE SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS: ADULTERY BANS AFTER LAWRENCE, 79 Fordham L. Rev. 605, 647 (2010) 946 THE RIGHTS OF DIVORCED LESBIANS: INTERSTATE RECOGNITION OF CHILD CUSTODY JUDGMENTS IN THE CONTEXT OF SAME-SEX DIVORCE, 78 Fordham L. Rev. 1379, 1431+ (2009) 947 LOWER COURTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL COMPARATIVISM, 77 Fordham L. Rev. 647, 665 (2008) 948 REVISITING THE LEGAL STANDARDS THAT GOVERN REQUESTS TO STERILIZE PROFOUNDLY INCOMPETENT CHILDREN: IN LIGHT OF THE "ASHLEY TREATMENT," IS A NEW STANDARD APPROPRIATE?, 77 Fordham L. Rev. 287, 326 (2008) 949 INTRODUCTION, 76 Fordham L. Rev. 2669, 2684+ (2008) 950 LONGING FOR LOVING, 76 Fordham L. Rev. 2685, 2707 (2008) 951 THE BLURRING OF THE LINES: CHILDREN AND BANS ON INTERRACIAL UNIONS AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGES, 76 Fordham L. Rev. 2733, 2770+ (2008) HN: 31,32,34 (N.E.2d) 952 TIME FOR RIGHTS? LOVING, GAY MARRIAGE, AND THE LIMITS OF LEGAL JUSTICE, 76 Fordham L. Rev. 2849, 2872 (2008) 953 LOVING GENDER BALANCE: REFRAMING IDENTITY-BASED INEQUALITY REMEDIES, 76 Fordham L. Rev. 2873, 2893 (2008) 954 THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING CONSTITUTIONAL THEORY: FROM THE PARTIAL CONSTITUTION TO THE MINIMAL CONSTITUTION, 75 Fordham L. Rev. 2885, 2920 (2007) 955 FROM STATES' RIGHTS BLUES TO BLUE STATES' RIGHTS:
FEDERALISM AFTER THE REHNQUIST COURT, 75 Fordham L. Rev. 799, 813 (2006) 956 PRINCIPLES OF U.S. FAMILY LAW, 75 Fordham L. Rev. 31, 73 (2006) 957 THE FLAWS OF RATIONAL BASIS WITH BITE: WHY THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD ACKNOWLEDGE ITS APPLICATION OF HEIGHTENED SCRUTINY TO CLASSIFICATIONS BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION, 73 Fordham L. Rev. 2769, 2814+ (2005) HN: 27,28,31 (N.E.2d) 958 IDENTITY POLITICS AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT, 73 Fordham L. Rev. 549, 572 (2004) 959 TOWARD A FUTURE, WISER COURT: A BLUEPRINT FOR OVERTURNING DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER, 39 Fordham Urb. L.J. 1353, 1382 (2012) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 960 ENGLISH REFORMS TO JUDICIAL SELECTION: COMPARATIVE LESSONS FOR AMERICAN STATES?, 34 Fordham Urb. L.J. 387, 423+ (2007) 961 EVEN MORE WRONGFUL DEATH: STATUTES DIVORCED FROM REALITY, 32 Fordham Urb. L.J. 171, 195+ (2005) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 962 GAY RIGHTS, EQUAL PROTECTION, AND THE CLASSIFICATIONFRAMING QUANDARY, 21 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 329, 358+ (2014) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 963 SIMILARLY SITUATED, 18 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 581, 624 (2011) HN: 32,36 (N.E.2d) 964 SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND THE NEW MEXICO EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT, 20 Geo. Mason U. Civ. Rts. L.J. 209, 235+ (2010) 965 THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF DOMA + INA: HOW IMMIGRATION LAW PROVIDES A FORUM FOR ATTACKING DOMA, 18 Geo. Mason U. Civ. Rts. L.J. 455, 493+ (2008) HN: 31,34,36 (N.E.2d) 966 THE FREEDOM OF INTIMATE ASSOCIATION IN THE TWENTY FIRST CENTURY, 16 Geo. Mason U. Civ. Rts. L.J. 269, 328+ (2006) 967 FAMILY "DE-UNIFICATION" IN THE UNITED STATES: INTERNATIONAL LAW ENCOURAGES IMMIGRATION REFORM FOR SAME-GENDER BINATIONAL PARTNERS, 36 Geo. Wash. Int'l L. Rev. 915, 917+ (2004) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 968 EQUAL LIBERTY: ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY AND REPRODUCTIVE EQUALITY, 76 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1457, 1489 (2008) 969 TWO ZONES OF PROPHYLAXIS: THE SCOPE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT ENFORCEMENT POWER, 76 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1, 51 (2007) 970 A MODEST PROPOSAL TO DEPORT THE CHILDREN OF GAY CITIZENS, & ETC.: IMMIGRATION LAW, THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT AND THE CHILDREN OF SAME-SEX COUPLES, 25 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 407, 485+ (2011) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 971 FROM LAWYER-SPOUSE TO LAWYER-PARTNER: CONFLICTS OF
INTEREST IN THE 21ST CENTURY, 19 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 405, 405+ (2006) HN: 34,36,38 (N.E.2d) 972 FAMILY LAW PLURALISM: THE GUIDED-CHOICE REGIME OF MENUS, DEFAULT RULES, AND OVERRIDE RULES, 100 Geo. L.J. 1881, 1985 (2012) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 973 RESPONSE: NO SUBSTITUTIONS, PLEASE, 100 Geo. L.J. 1989, 2014+ (2012) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 974 RESPONSE: AND BABY MAKES ... HOW MANY? USING IN RE M.C. TO CONSIDER PARENTAGE OF A CHILD CONCEIVED THROUGH SEXUAL INTERCOURSE AND BORN TO A LESBIAN COUPLE, 100 Geo. L.J. 2015, 2050+ (2012) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 975 SEXUAL REORIENTATION, 100 Geo. L.J. 997, 1068+ (2012) HN: 2,6,34 (N.E.2d) 976 COMMERCE GAMES AND THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE, 100 Geo. L.J. 1117, 1175 (2012) HN: 2,6,34 (N.E.2d) 977 THE NEW KINSHIP, 100 Geo. L.J. 367, 429 (2012) 978 (STILL) NOT FIT TO BE NAMED: MOVING BEYOND RACE TO EXPLAIN WHY "SEPARATE' NOMENCLATURE FOR GAY AND STRAIGHT RELATIONSHIPS WILL NEVER BE "EQUAL', 97 Geo. L.J. 1155, 1205 (2009) HN: 37 (N.E.2d) 979 GODS & GAYS: ANALYZING THE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE DEBATE FROM A RELIGIOUS PERSPECTIVE, 96 Geo. L.J. 2103, 2140+ (2008) 980 FEDERAL COURTS, STATE COURTS AND CIVIL RIGHTS: JUDICIAL POWER AND POLITICS REVIEW OF DANIEL R. PINELLO, GAY RIGHTS AND AMERICAN LAW, CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS, 2003, PP. 349. $23.00 (HARDCOVER), 92 Geo. L.J. 941, 980 (2004) 981 THE JURISPRUDENCE OF DISCRIMINATION AS OPPOSED TO SIMPLE INEQUALITY IN THE INTERNATIONAL CIVIL SERVICE, 36 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 1, 87 (2007) 982 LEGAL RECOGNITION OF GENDER CHANGE FOR TRANSSEXUAL PERSONS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM: THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 AND "COMPATIBILITY" WITH EUROPEAN HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, 33 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 333, 414 (2005) 983 DEMOCRACY IN DISGUISE: ASSESSING THE REFORMS TO THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS PROVISIONS IN GUYANA, 32 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 613, 655+ (2004) 984 COLLAPSING SUSPECT CLASS WITH SUSPECT CLASSIFICATION: WHY STRICT SCRUTINY IS TOO STRICT AND MAYBE NOT STRICT ENOUGH, 47 Ga. L. Rev. 301, 368+ (2013) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 985 DISCRIMINATION UNDER A DESCRIPTION, 47 Ga. L. Rev. 1, 39+ (2012) HN: 2,6,34 (N.E.2d) 986 WHEN AND HOW (IF AT ALL) DOES LAW CONSTRAIN OFFICIAL
ACTION?, 44 Ga. L. Rev. 769, 801 (2010) HN: 2,6 (N.E.2d) 987 A UNIFORM DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP ACT: MARRYING BUSINESS PARTNERSHIP AND FAMILY LAW, 41 Ga. L. Rev. 349, 429 (2007) 988 THE CITY OF GOD AND THE CITIES OF MEN: A RESPONSE TO JASON CARTER, 41 Ga. L. Rev. 113, 155 (2006) 989 LOCHNER, LAWRENCE, AND LIBERTY, 27 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 609, 672+ (2011) 990 DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT: AMEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA TO PROVIDE THAT GEORGIA SHALL RECOGNIZE AS MARRIAGE ONLY THE UNION OF A MAN AND A WOMAN; PROVIDE FOR SUBMISSION OF THIS AMENDMENT FOR RATIFICATION O, 21 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 14, 17+ (2004) HN: 32,33,42 (N.E.2d) 991 PLURAL MARRIAGE AND COMMUNITY PROPERTY LAW, 41 Golden Gate U. L. Rev. 33, 89+ (2010) 992 SYMPTOMS FOR SCALIA AND TEXAS: GAY RIGHTS AND AMERICAN NATIONALISM, 35 Golden Gate U. L. Rev. 111, 111 (2005) 993 ELIDING IN WASHINGTON AND CALIFORNIA, 42 Gonz. L. Rev. 501, 546+ (2007) 994 A SURVEY OF GAY RIGHTS CULMINATING IN LAWRENCE V. TEXAS, 39 Gonz. L. Rev. 539, 573+ (2004) HN: 41 (N.E.2d) 995 GROWING OLD WITH A LESBIAN OR GAY PARTNER, 25 NO. 5 GPSolo 20, 20 (2008) HN: 17 (N.E.2d) 996 "THE RACE TO THE BOTTOM" Competition in the Law of Property, 9 Green Bag 2d 47, 54 (2005) 997 REFLECTIONS ON THE JUDICIAL OATH, 8 Green Bag 2d 177, 186 (2005) 998 THE PROPOSED MINNESOTA MARRIAGE AMENDMENT IN COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: SUBSTANCE AND PROCEDURE, 34 Hamline J. Pub. L. & Pol'y 141, 168+ (2013) HN: 2,6,34 (N.E.2d) 999 PERRY V. SCHWARZENEGGER: WHY THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY IS THE RIGHT COURSE TO SECURE MARRIAGE EQUALITY, REMOVE UNNECESSARY DISPARITIES, AND INTEGRATE SAME-SEX COUPLES INTO SOCIETY, 32 Hamline J. Pub. L. & Pol'y 215, 260+ (2010) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1000 WHY THE CIVIL INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE MUST BE EXTENDED TO SAME SEX COUPLES, 26 Hamline J. Pub. L. & Pol'y 73, 110+ (2004) HN: 15,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1001 ON THE INCOMPATIBILITY OF POLITICAL VIRTUE AND JUDICIAL REVIEW: A NEO-ARISTOTELEAN PERSPECTIVE, 34 Hamline L. Rev. 263, 329+ (2011) HN: 28 (N.E.2d) 1002 MINNESOTA REFLECTIONS ON A CENTURY OF CHANGE THE STASIS:
ROSCOE POUND'S VISIT TO ST. PAUL, 30 Hamline L. Rev. 489, 497 (2007) 1003 CITIZENS FOR EQUAL PROTECTION V. BRUNING: WHY THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT WRONGLY UPHELD NEBRASKA'S S 29 IN THE FACE OF AN EQUAL PROTECTION CHALLENGE, 30 Hamline L. Rev. 373, 408+ (2007) HN: 13,17,31 (N.E.2d) 1004 BAKER v. NELSON REVISITED: IS SAME-SEX MARRIAGE COMING TO MINNESOTA?, 28 Hamline L. Rev. 425, 427+ (2005) HN: 17,31,32 (N.E.2d) 1005 RESTRUCTURING THE FRAMEWORK FOR LEGAL ANALYSES OF GAY PARENTING, 21 Harv. BlackLetter L.J. 109, 109+ (2005) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1006 SEARCHING FOR HARM: SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND THE WELLBEING OF CHILDREN, 46 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 81, 101+ (2011) 1007 JUDGING JENA'S D.A.: THE PROSECUTOR AND RACIAL ESTEEM, 44 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 393, 459+ (2009) 1008 NETWORKS AND NORMS: SOCIAL JUSTICE LAWYERING AND SOCIAL CAPITAL IN POST-KATRINA NEW ORLEANS, 44 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 255, 274 (2009) 1009 ROE RAGE: DEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTIONALISM AND BACKLASH, 42 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 373, 392+ (2007) 1010 MARITAL STATUS AS PROPERTY: TOWARD A NEW JURISPRUDENCE FOR GAY RIGHTS, 41 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 509, 511+ (2006) HN: 15,31,42 (N.E.2d) 1011 CONSTITUTIONAL CONSCIENCE, CONSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY: THE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN PROTECTING INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, 41 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 219, 263 (2006) 1012 GOODRIDGE IN CONTEXT, 40 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 1, 1+ (2005) HN: 15,31,34 (N.E.2d) 1013 SMITH v. CITY OF SALEM: TITLE VII PROTECTS CONTRA-GENDER BEHAVIOR, 40 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 277, 288 (2005) 1014 MY HARVARD LAW SCHOOL, 39 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 317, 330+ (2004) 1015 THE MYTHOLOGY OF A HUMAN RIGHTS LEADER: HOW THE UNITED STATES HAS FAILED SEXUAL MINORITIES AT HOME AND ABROAD, 21 Harv. Hum. Rts. J. 197, 205 (2008) 1016 SPEAKING UP FOR MARRIAGE, 32 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 915, 930+ (2009) 1017 NEUTRALITY IN LIBERAL LEGAL THEORY AND CATHOLIC SOCIAL THOUGHT, 32 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 513, 597 (2009) 1018 THE MERITS OF MERIT SELECTION, 32 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 67, 96 (2009) 1019 MARRIAGE FACTS, 31 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 313, 354+ (2008) HN: 15,31,33 (N.E.2d) 1020 OR FOR POORER? HOW SAME-SEX MARRIAGE THREATENS RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, 30 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 939, 941+ (2007) HN:
31,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1021 BEFORE ROE v. WADE: JUDGE FRIENDLY'S DRAFT ABORTION OPINION, 29 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 1035, 1056 (2006) HN: 41 (N.E.2d) 1022 AN ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LAWS, 29 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 949, 980 (2006) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1023 JUDICIAL REVIEW OF UNENUMERATED RIGHTS: DOES MARBURY'S HOLDING APPLY IN A POST-WARREN COURT WORLD?, 28 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 713, 722+ (2005) 1024 IF RACIAL DESEGREGATION, THEN SAME-SEX MARRIAGE? ORIGINALISM AND THE SUPREME COURT'S FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, 28 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 781, 839+ (2005) HN: 32,38 (N.E.2d) 1025 ABANDONING BEDROCK PRINCIPLES?: THE MUSGRAVE AMENDMENT AND FEDERALISM, 27 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 985, 986+ (2004) HN: 31,32,34 (N.E.2d) 1026 THE FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT AND RULE BY JUDGES, 27 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 543, 543+ (2004) HN: 31,32,34 (N.E.2d) 1027 JURISDICTION-STRIPPING: THE PLEDGE PROTECTION ACT OF 2004, 42 Harv. J. on Legis. 511, 523 (2005) HN: 17 (N.E.2d) 1028 FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT, 41 Harv. J. on Legis. 483, 492+ (2004) HN: 31,36,42 (N.E.2d) 1029 FOREWORD: EQUALITY DIVIDED, 127 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 94+ (2013) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1030 WINDSOR AND BROWN: MARRIAGE EQUALITY AND RACIAL EQUALITY, 127 Harv. L. Rev. 127, 160 (2013) 1031 EQUAL PROTECTION-SEXUAL ORIENTATION-FIRST CIRCUIT INVALIDATES STATUTE THAT DEFINES MARRIAGE AS LEGAL UNION BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.-MASSACHUSETTS V. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, 682 F.3D 1 (, 126 Harv. L. Rev. 611, 618 (2012) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1032 THE NEW EQUAL PROTECTION, 124 Harv. L. Rev. 747, 803+ (2011) 1033 INTIMATE DISCRIMINATION: THE STATE'S ROLE IN THE ACCIDENTS OF SEX AND LOVE, 122 Harv. L. Rev. 1307, 1402+ (2009) 1034 THE RULE OF LAW IN THE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS: PLEDGES OR PROMISES BY CANDIDATES FOR JUDICIAL ELECTION, 122 Harv. L. Rev. 1511, 1532 (2009) 1035 STATE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT DECLARES PROHIBITION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGES UNCONSTITUTIONAL.-IN RE MARRIAGE CASES, 183 P.3D 384 (CAL. 2008)., 122 Harv. L. Rev. 1557, 1564 (2009) 1036 CONGRESS, ARTICLE IV, AND INTERSTATE RELATIONS, 120 Harv. L.
Rev. 1468, 1542+ (2007) 1037 FOREWORD: THE COURT'S AGENDA - AND THE NATION'S, 120 Harv. L. Rev. 4, 21+ (2006) 1038 INBRED OBSCURITY: IMPROVING INCEST LAWS IN THE SHADOW OF THE "SEXUAL FAMILY", 119 Harv. L. Rev. 2464, 2485+ (2006) HN: 31 (N.E.2d) 1039 EQUAL PROTECTION - SEXUAL ORIENTATION - KANSAS SUPREME COURT INVALIDATES UNEQUAL PUNISHMENTS FOR HOMOSEXUAL AND HETEROSEXUAL TEENAGE SEX OFFENDERS. - STATE V. LIMON, 122 P.3D 22 (KAN. 2005), 119 Harv. L. Rev. 2276, 2283+ (2006) 1040 THE POLITICAL CONSTITUTION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, 119 Harv. L. Rev. 780, 851 (2006) 1041 UNFIXING LAWRENCE, 118 Harv. L. Rev. 2858, 2881+ (2005) 1042 FAMILY LAW - UNMARRIED COUPLES - MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT HOLDS THAT A FORMER DOMESTIC PARTNER NEED NOT FULFILL PROMISES TO SUPPORT A CHILD BORN AFTER THE RELATIONSHIP HAS DISSOLVED. - T.F. V. B.L., 813 N.E.2, 118 Harv. L. Rev. 1039, 1045+ (2005) HN: 31,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1043 LITIGATING THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT: THE NEXT BATTLEGROUND FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 117 Harv. L. Rev. 2684, 2707+ (2004) 1044 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - DUE PROCESS CLAUSE - MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT HOLDS THAT OPPOSITE-SEX MARRIAGE LAW VIOLATES RIGHT TO MARRY. - GOODRIDGE V. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 798 N.E.2D 941 (MASS. 2003)., 117 Harv. L. Rev. 2441, 2447+ (2004) HN: 15,31,32 (N.E.2d) 1045 LAWRENCE V. TEXAS: THE "FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT" THAT DARE NOT SPEAK ITS NAME, 117 Harv. L. Rev. 1893, 1955+ (2004) 1046 SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: AN ISSUE OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS NOT MORAL OPINIONS, 27 Harv. Women's L.J. 345, 345+ (2004) HN: 34,36,42 (N.E.2d) 1047 WHAT'S SEX GOT TO DO WITH IT? A CINEMATIC CRITIQUE ON THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 31 Hastings Comm. & Ent. L.J. 321, 338+ (2009) HN: 31,32,34 (N.E.2d) 1048 PROPOSITION 8 AND THE NEED FOR CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT INITIATIVE REFORM: TOLERANCE REQUIRES TIME AND DELIBERATION, 37 Hastings Const. L.Q. 591, 616+ (2010) 1049 A REEXAMINATION OF THE TINKER STANDARD: FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS, 35 Hastings Const. L.Q. 575, 590+ (2008) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1050 CHOICE V. CHANCE: THE CONSTITUTIONAL CASE FOR REGULATING HUMAN GERMLINE GENETIC MODIFICATION, 34 Hastings Const. L.Q.
133, 159 (2006) 1051 THE PROCREATIVE ARGUMENT FOR PROSCRIBING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 32 Hastings Const. L.Q. 653, 676+ (2005) HN: 32 (N.E.2d) 1052 SQUARE CIRCLES?!! RESTORING RATIONALITY TO THE SAME-SEX "MARRIAGE" DEBATE, 32 Hastings Const. L.Q. 681, 724 (2005) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1053 A CONSERVATIVE CRITIQUE OF THE FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT, 32 Hastings Const. L.Q. 725, 736+ (2005) 1054 MARRIAGE RIGHTS AND THE GOOD LIFE: A SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY OF MARRIAGE AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 64 Hastings L.J. 739, 773+ (2013) HN: 15,17 (N.E.2d) 1055 PUBLIC OPINION, CULTURAL CHANGE, AND CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION, 61 Hastings L.J. 1437, 1452+ (2010) 1056 CAN A SUBSEQUENT CHANGE IN LAW VOID A MARRIAGE THAT WAS VALID AT ITS INCEPTION? CONSIDERING THE LEGAL EFFECT OF PROPOSITION 8 ON CALIFORNIA'S EXISTING SAME-SEX MARRIAGES, 60 Hastings L.J. 1063, 1127+ (2009) 1057 FORMALISM: FROM RACIAL INTEGRATION TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 59 Hastings L.J. 843, 876+ (2008) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 1058 KAREN THOMPSON'S ROLE IN THE MOVEMENT FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY, 25 Hastings Women's L.J. 3, 12+ (2014) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1059 STILL PIONEERS: SPECIAL SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC HARDSHIPS FOR ELDERLY GAYS AND LESBIANS, 21 Hastings Women's L.J. 137, 157 (2010) 1060 THREE'S COMPANY? HOW AMERICAN LAW CAN RECOGNIZE A THIRD SOCIAL PARENT IN SAME-SEX HEADED FAMILIES, 19 Hastings Women's L.J. 171, 209+ (2008) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1061 CALIFORNIA'S ASSEMBLY BILL 205, THE DOMESTIC PARTNER RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES ACT OF 2003: IS DOMESTIC PARTNER LEGISLATION COMPROMISING THE CAMPAIGN FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY?, 17 Hastings Women's L.J. 39, 64+ (2006) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 1062 USING POSTMODERN FEMINIST LEGAL THEORY TO INTERRUPT THE REINSCRIPTION OF SEX STEREOTYPES THROUGH THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE, 16 Hastings Women's L.J. 159, 175+ (2005) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1063 SURROUNDING EMBRYOS: BIOLOGY, IDEOLOGY, AND POLITICS, 16 Health Matrix 27, 64+ (2006) HN: 15 (N.E.2d) 1064 WHEN HARRY MET LARRY AND LARRY GOT SICK: WHY SAME-SEX FAMILIES SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO BENEFITS UNDER THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT, 22 Hofstra Lab. & Emp. L.J. 276, 323+ (2004) HN: 31,32,34 (N.E.2d) 1065 SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: THE EVOLVING LANDSCAPE FOR EMPLOYEE BENEFITS, 22 Hofstra Lab. & Emp. L.J. 65, 80+ (2004) HN: 17,42 (N.E.2d)
1066 FAMILIES NOW: WHAT WE DON'T KNOW IS HURTING US, 40 Hofstra L. Rev. 719, 733+ (2012) HN: 2,36 (N.E.2d) 1067 REDEFINING THE LEGAL FAMILY: PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPARENTS AND THE BEST INTERESTS OF THEIR CHILDREN, 38 Hofstra L. Rev. 319, 365+ (2009) 1068 CRACKING OPEN THE GOLDEN DOOR: REVISITING U.S. ASYLUM LAW'S RESPONSE TO CHINA'S ONE-CHILD POLICY, 37 Hofstra L. Rev. 1135, 1169 (2009) 1069 PARENTS BY THE NUMBERS, 37 Hofstra L. Rev. 11, 69 (2008) 1070 DEBATING CONFLICTS: MEDICINE, COMMERCE, AND CONTRASTING ETHICAL ORDERS, 35 Hofstra L. Rev. 705, 735+ (2006) 1071 YOU CAN'T CHOOSE YOUR PARENTS: WHY CHILDREN RAISED BY SAME-SEX COUPLES ARE ENTITLED TO INHERITANCE RIGHTS FROM BOTH THEIR PARENTS, 35 Hofstra L. Rev. 857, 899+ (2006) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1072 SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND SLIPPERY SLOPES, 33 Hofstra L. Rev. 1155, 1201+ (2005) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1073 INHERITANCE RIGHTS AND THE STEP-PARTNER ADOPTION PARADIGM: SHADES OF THE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN, 34 Hofstra L. Rev. 351, 403 (2005) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 1074 JUDICIAL CORRECTNESS MEETS CONSTITUTIONAL CORRECTNESS: SECTION 2C OF THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, 32 Hofstra L. Rev. 1293, 1348 (2004) 1075 WITH ALL DUE DEFERENCE: JUDICIAL RESPONSIBILITY IN A TIME OF CRISIS, 32 Hofstra L. Rev. 1605, 1662 (2004) 1076 ENDING MARRIAGE AS WE KNOW IT, 32 Hofstra L. Rev. 201, 232+ (2003) 1077 THE IMPORTANCE OF PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW FOR FAMILY ISSUES IN AN ERA OF GLOBALIZATION: TWO CASE STUDIESINTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION AND SAME-SEX UNIONS, 32 Hofstra L. Rev. 233, 272+ (2003) HN: 31,36,42 (N.E.2d) 1078 HOW MUCH DO WESTERN DEMOCRACIES VALUE FAMILY AND MARRIAGE?: IMMIGRATION LAW'S CONFLICTED ANSWERS, 32 Hofstra L. Rev. 273, 311 (2003) 1079 UNBUNDLING MARRIAGE, 32 Hofstra L. Rev. 31, 70+ (2003) 1080 TOWARD EQUAL REGARD FOR MARRIAGES AND OTHER IMPERFECT INTIMATE AFFILIATIONS, 32 Hofstra L. Rev. 331, 348 (2003) 1081 INTIMATE AFFILIATION AND DEMOCRACY: BEYOND MARRIAGE?, 32 Hofstra L. Rev. 379, 421+ (2003) HN: 15,31,32 (N.E.2d) 1082 ASSESSING THE VIABILITY OF STATE INTERNATIONAL LAW PROHIBITIONS, 35 Hous. J. Int'l L. 465, 502 (2013)
1083 TEXAS POLYGAMY AND CHILD WELFARE, 46 Hous. L. Rev. 759, 816+ (2009) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1084 POLYGAMIST EYE FOR THE MONOGAMIST GUY: HOMOSEXUAL SODOMY . . . GAY MARRIAGE . . . IS POLYGAMY NEXT?, 42 Hous. L. Rev. 1451, 1486+ (2006) HN: 31,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1085 MORAL COMMUNITIES OR A MARKET STATE: THE SUPREME COURT'S VISION OF THE POLICE POWER IN THE AGE OF GLOBALIZATION, 42 Hous. L. Rev. 637, 725+ (2005) 1086 SELECTIVE CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS IN LAWRENCE V. TEXAS: AN EXERCISE IN JUDICIAL RESTRAINT OR A WILLINGNESS TO RECONSIDER EQUAL PROTECTION CLASSIFICATION FOR HOMOSEXUALS?, 41 Hous. L. Rev. 1407, 1435+ (2004) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 1087 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF LAWRENCE v. TEXAS, 41-FEB Hous. Law. 32, 38 (2004) 1088 THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT AND STATE BANS ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: WHY THEY WON'T SURVIVE, 54 How. L.J. 125, 174+ (2010) 1089 THE FORGOTTEN SIDE OF THE BATTLEFIELD IN AMERICA'S WAR ON INFIDELITY: A CALL FOR THE REVAMPING, REVIVING, AND REWORKING OF CRIMINAL CONVERSATION AND ALIENATION OF AFFECTIONS, 53 How. L.J. 377, 419+ (2010) 1090 FROM FAMILY TO INDIVIDUAL AND BACK AGAIN, 51 How. L.J. 1, 14 (2007) 1091 IN PRAISE OF LOVING: REFLECTIONS ON THE "LOVING ANALOGY" FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 51 How. L.J. 117, 186+ (2007) HN: 38 (N.E.2d) 1092 THE LEGACY OF LOVING, 51 How. L.J. 15, 52+ (2007) 1093 LOVING REVISIONISM: ON RESTRICTING MARRIAGE AND SUBVERTING THE CONSTITUTION, 51 How. L.J. 75, 115 (2007) 1094 PORTRAIT OF AN INSTITUTION: HOW RECENT CASES DISTORT OUR UNDERSTANDING OF MARRIAGE, 50 How. L.J. 95, 112+ (2006) 1095 COPYRIGHT AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 48 How. L.J. 629, 657 (2005) 1096 FLAGS, 48 How. L.J. 121, 164 (2004) 1097 JUDGING JUDGES JUDGING, 48 How. L.J. 459, 489 (2004) 1098 ADVANCING THE FREEDOM TO MARRY IN AMERICA, 36-SUM Hum. Rts. 11, 12 (2009) 1099 THE EVOLUTION OF THE AMERICAN FAMILY, 36-SUM Hum. Rts. 2, 5 (2009) 1100 FINDING FAMILY: CONSIDERING THE RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX FAMILIES IN INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW AND THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, 13 NO. 2 Hum. Rts. Brief 17, 20
(2006) 1101 MCGRIFF V. MCGRIFF: CONSIDERATION OF A PARENT'S SEXUAL ORIENTATION IN CHILD CUSTODY DISPUTES, 41 Idaho L. Rev. 593, 644 (2005) 1102 TRANSNATIONAL SURROGACY AND INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, 18 ILSA J. Int'l & Comp. L. 369, 386+ (2012) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1103 SEXUALITY AND GLOBAL FORCES: DR. ALFRED KINSEY AND THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 14 Ind. J. Global Legal Stud. 485, 508 (2007) 1104 HOW PARENTS ARE MADE: A RESPONSE TO DISCRIMINATION IN BABY MAKING: THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL TREATMENT OF PROSPECTIVE PARENTS THROUGH SURROGACY, 88 Ind. L.J. 1207, 1213+ (2013) HN: 14 (N.E.2d) 1105 HIERARCHIES OF DISCRIMINATION IN BABY MAKING? A RESPONSE TO PROFESSOR CARROLL, 88 Ind. L.J. 1217, 1218+ (2013) 1106 "BUILDING THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY (LITERALLY AND LEGALLY): THE MONUMENTS OF CHIEF JUSTICES TAFT, WARREN, AND REHNQUIST, 87 Ind. L.J. 823, 950 (2012) 1107 "DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL," THE SUPREME COURT, AND LAWRENCE THE "LAGGARD", 87 Ind. L.J. 795, 822+ (2012) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 1108 MARITAL NAMING/NAMING MARRIAGE: LANGUAGE AND STATUS IN FAMILY LAW, 85 Ind. L.J. 893, 953+ (2010) HN: 15,31 (N.E.2d) 1109 SAY "I DO": THE JUDICIAL DUTY TO HEIGHTEN CONSTITUTIONAL SCRUTINY OF IMMIGRATION POLICIES AFFECTING SAME-SEX BINATIONAL COUPLES, 84 Ind. L.J. 689, 712 (2009) 1110 LAW & POLITICS: THE CASE AGAINST JUDICIAL REVIEW OF DIRECT DEMOCRACY, 82 Ind. L.J. 1125, 1152+ (2007) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1111 CONTESTING GENDER IN POPULAR CULTURE AND FAMILY LAW: MIDDLESEX AND OTHER TRANSGENDER TALES, 80 Ind. L.J. 391, 419+ (2005) HN: 31,32,34 (N.E.2d) 1112 INDIANA PROPOSED DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE AMENDMENT: WHAT WILL IT DO AND WHY IS IT NEEDED, 41 Ind. L. Rev. 245, 272+ (2008) HN: 31,36,42 (N.E.2d) 1113 INDIANA CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENTS: LACHES, SENTENCES, AND PRIVACY, 39 Ind. L. Rev. 847, 891 (2006) 1114 GROKSTER UNPLUGGED: IT'S TIME TO LEGALIZE P2P FILE SHARING, 12 Intell. Prop. L. Bull. 1, 18 (2007) 1115 SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY, 44 Int'l Law. 547, 561 (2010) 1116 CROSS-BORDER PRIVATE CLIENT, 39 Int'l Law. 483, 492+ (2005) HN: 36 (N.E.2d)
1117 HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, 38 Int'l Law. 499, 508+ (2004) 1118 MARRIAGE, BIOLOGY, AND FEDERAL BENEFITS, 98 Iowa L. Rev. 1467, 1476+ (2013) HN: 32,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1119 WINNING THROUGH LOSING, 96 Iowa L. Rev. 941, 1012+ (2011) 1120 OUT-OF-STATE CIVIL UNIONS IN IOWA AFTER VARNUM V. BRIEN: WHY THE STATE OF IOWA SHOULD RECOGNIZE CIVIL UNIONSAS MARRIAGES, 96 Iowa L. Rev. 297, 329+ (2010) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 1121 PEACEMAKING IN THE CULTURE WAR BETWEEN GAY RIGHTS AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, 95 Iowa L. Rev. 747, 819+ (2010) 1122 STRANGE BEDFELLOWS: CRIMINAL LAW, FAMILY LAW, AND THE LEGAL CONSTRUCTION OF INTIMATE LIFE, 94 Iowa L. Rev. 1253, 1313 (2009) HN: 38 (N.E.2d) 1123 GAMBLING, GREYHOUNDS, AND GAY MARRIAGE: HOW THE IOWA SUPREME COURT CAN USE THE RATIONAL-BASIS TEST TO ADDRESS VARNUM V. BRIEN, 94 Iowa L. Rev. 413, 448+ (2008) 1124 A NEW "I DO": TOWARDS A MARRIAGE-NEUTRAL INCOME TAX, 91 Iowa L. Rev. 1509, 1568+ (2006) HN: 11 (N.E.2d) 1125 PREACHERS, POLITICIANS, AND SAME-SEX COUPLES: CHALLENGING SAME-SEX CIVIL UNIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ON INTERSTATE RECOGNITION, 91 Iowa L. Rev. 319, 348 (2005) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 1126 POLITICAL REPRESENTATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY UNDER DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL, 89 Iowa L. Rev. 1633, 1716+ (2004) 1127 MARRIAGE, BIOLOGY, AND GENDER, 98 Iowa L. Rev. Bull. 83, 85+ (2013) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1128 HOSPITAL VISITATION: THE FORGOTTEN GAY RIGHTS STRUGGLE, 45 J. Marshall L. Rev. 939, 944+ (2012) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1129 SECOND-CLASS CITIZENSHIP: THE TENSION BETWEEN THE SUPREMACY OF THE PEOPLE AND MINORITY RIGHTS, 43 J. Marshall L. Rev. 963, 1008+ (2010) 1130 SAUL ALINSKY AND THE LITIGATION CAMPAIGN TO WIN THE RIGHT TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 42 J. Marshall L. Rev. 643, 669 (2009) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 1131 THE HISTORY OF SLAVE MARRIAGE IN THE UNITED STATES, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 299, 347+ (2006) HN: 36,42 (N.E.2d) 1132 DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL, DON'T WORK: THE DISCRIMINATORY EFFECT OF VETERANS' PREFERENCES ON HOMOSEXUALS, 38 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1083, 1119+ (2005) HN: 31 (N.E.2d) 1133 Profoundly Unwise and Even Irresponsible Uncertainty: Some Questions as to the Effect of the Defense of Marriage Act on Marital Status in Bankruptcy for Same-Sex Couples Validly Married under State Law, 14 J. Bankr. L. & Prac. 1 ART. 1, 1 Art. 1+ (2005)
1134 THE NEW YORK MARRIAGE EQUALITY ACT AND THE STRENGTH OF ITS RELIGIOUS EXCEPTIONS, 51 J. Cath. Legal Stud. 207, 239 (2012) HN: 2,34 (N.E.2d) 1135 WHITHER FREE EXERCISE: EMPLOYMENT DIVISION V. SMITH AND THE REBIRTH OF STATE CONSTITUTIONAL FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE JURISPRUDENCE?, 48 J. Cath. Legal Stud. 269, 301+ (2009) HN: 38 (N.E.2d) 1136 THE BLESSING OR THE CURSE: WHOSE VALUES WILL GUIDE US? WHERE WILL THEY LEAD US?, 47 J. Cath. Legal Stud. 167, 190+ (2008) HN: 27,29,30 (N.E.2d) 1137 AN "OTHER" CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE ON LAWRENCE V. TEXAS, 45 J. Cath. Legal Stud. 115, 130+ (2006) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 1138 A NATURAL LAW APPROACH TO AN ISSUE OF THE DAY: A CRITIQUE OF THE (EQUALITY) JUSTIFICATION FOR SAME SEX MARRIAGE, 26 J. Civ. Rts. & Econ. Dev 565, 575+ (2012) HN: 2,8,34 (N.E.2d) 1139 LAW ON THE FRONT LINES: PUSHING THE BOUNDARIES OF "MARRIAGE", 26 J. Civ. Rts. & Econ. Dev 591, 620 (2012) 1140 CIVIL UNIONS RECONSIDERED, 26 J. Civ. Rts. & Econ. Dev 621, 628+ (2012) 1141 THE IMPERIAL JUDICIARY'S NEW ROBES, 26 J. Civ. Rts. & Econ. Dev 639, 661 (2012) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 1142 UNTYING THE KNOT: EXTENDING INTESTACY BENEFITS TO NONTRADITIONAL FAMILIES BY SEVERING THE LINK TO MARRIAGE, 25 J. Civ. Rts. & Econ. Dev 323, 352+ (2011) 1143 EVOLVING LAW IN SAME-SEX SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION, 31 J.C. & U.L. 193, 238+ (2004) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 1144 INTRODUCTION: POSITIVE POLITICAL THEORY AND THE LAW, 15 J. Contemp. Legal Issues 1, 8 (2006) 1145 HOW MASSACHUSETTS GOT GAY MARRIAGE: THE INTERSECTION OF POPULAR OPINION, LEGISLATIVE ACTION, AND JUDICIAL POWER, 15 J. Contemp. Legal Issues 219, 241+ (2006) 1146 EMPLOYEE ERISA BENEFITS AFTER GOODRIDGE V. PUBLIC HEALTH: DO SAME-SEX MARRIAGES QUALIFY AS LEGAL MARRIAGES UNDER EMPLOYER-CREATED ERISA PLANS?, 31 J. Corp. L. 267, 285+ (2005) HN: 36,42 (N.E.2d) 1147 A MINOR EXCEPTION?: THE IMPACT OF LAWRENCE V. TEXAS ON LGBT YOUTH, 95 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 1363, 1410+ (2005) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1148 VANISHING TRIAL, VANISHING COMMUNITY? THE POTENTIAL EFFECT OF THE VANISHING TRIAL ON AMERICA's SOCIAL CAPITAL, 2006 J. Disp. Resol. 165, 180 (2006) 1149 MARITAL STATUS AND PRIVILEGE, 16 J. Gender Race & Just. 769, 791
(2013) HN: 2,6 (N.E.2d) 1150 PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL: A CALL FOR A MORE INCLUSIVE CONTRACT LAW, 16 J. Gender Race & Just. 47, 103+ (2013) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1151 WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?! : WHY IOWA MUST EXTEND THE MARITAL PRESUMPTION TO CHILDREN BORN TO MARRIED, SAME-SEX COUPLES, 15 J. Gender Race & Just. 141, 164+ (2012) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1152 THE SYNERGISTIC EVOLUTION OF LIBERTY AND EQUALITY IN THE MARRIAGE CASES BROUGHT BY SAME-SEX COUPLES IN STATE COURTS, 13 J. Gender Race & Just. 275, 320+ (2010) HN: 31,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1153 TO GO INTO BATTLE WITH SPACE AND TIME: EMANCIPATED SLAVE MARRIAGE, INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE, AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 13 J. Gender Race & Just. 105, 151+ (2009) 1154 CONTEXTUALIZING VARNUM V. BRIEN: A "MOMENT" IN HISTORY, 13 J. Gender Race & Just. 27, 58+ (2009) 1155 MARRIAGE ON TRIAL, 12 J. Gender Race & Just. 493, 508+ (2009) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1156 EQUALITY OPPORTUNITY: MARRIAGE LITIGATION AND IOWA'S EQUAL PROTECTION LAW, 12 J. Gender Race & Just. 107, 113 (2008) HN: 17 (N.E.2d) 1157 IT'S ABOUT TIME, OR IS IT?: IOWA DISTRICT COURT'S INVALIDATION OF IOWA'S MINI-DOMA, 12 J. Gender Race & Just. 153, 184+ (2008) HN: 31,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1158 HERNANDEZ V. ROBLES AND GOODRIDGE V. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH: THE IRRATIONALITY OF THE RATIONAL BASIS TEST, 11 J. Gender Race & Just. 149, 180+ (2007) HN: 31,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1159 THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND CIVIL MARRIAGE PROTECTION ACT: HOW GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER FAILED HIS CONSTITUENTS, 10 J. Gender Race & Just. 481, 504 (2007) 1160 A LESBIAN CENTERED CRITIQUE OF "GENETIC PARENTHOOD", 9 J. Gender Race & Just. 591, 612 (2006) 1161 WHERE IS MY OTHER MOMMY?: APPLYING THE PRESUMED FATHER PROVISION OF THE UNIFORM PARENTAGE ACT TO RECOGNIZE THE RIGHTS OF LESBIAN MOTHERS AND THEIR CHILDREN, 9 J. Gender Race & Just. 385, 417 (2005) HN: 13 (N.E.2d) 1162 THE UNHEARD VICTIMS OF THE REFUSAL TO LEGALIZE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: THE RELUCTANCE TO RECOGNIZE SAME-SEX PARTNERS AS PARENTS INSTEAD OF STRANGERS, 9 J. Gender Race & Just. 419, 442+ (2005) HN: 34,36,42 (N.E.2d) 1163 LESSONS FROM AND FOR "DISABLED" STUDENTS, 8 J. Gender Race & Just. 75, 99+ (2004) 1164 TOO MUCH OF A GOOD THING: TOWARD A REGULATED MARKET IN
HUMAN EGGS, 1 J. Health & Biomedical L. 135, 150 (2005) HN: 32 (N.E.2d) 1165 Marriage and Civil Partnership for Same-Sex Couples: The International Imperative, 1 Journal of International Law & International Relations 249 (2005) 1166 Canada Is a Blue State: Global Jurisprudence and Domestic Consciousness in American Gay Rights Discourse, 1 Journal of International Law & International Relations 261+ (2005) 1167 GONZALES v. CARHART AND THE HAZARDS OF MUDDLED SCRUTINY, 17 J.L. & Pol'y 57, 78+ (2008) HN: 31,34 (N.E.2d) 1168 SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY, 13 J. L. & Fam. Stud. 117, 150+ (2011) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1169 SHOULD COHABITATION MATTER IN FAMILY LAW?, 13 J. L. & Fam. Stud. 289, 328+ (2011) 1170 THE STORIES OF MARRIAGE, 12 J. L. & Fam. Stud. 1, 55+ (2010) HN: 31,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1171 TWO STEPS BEHIND: THE LAW'S STRUGGLE TO KEEP PACE WITH THE CHANGING DYNAMICS OF THE AMERICAN FAMILY, 11 J. L. & Fam. Stud. 509, 515 (2009) 1172 TRANSFORMING MARRIAGE: THE TRANSFORMATION OF INTIMACY AND THE DEMOCRATIZING POTENTIAL OF LOVE, 9 J. L. & Fam. Stud. 101, 127+ (2007) 1173 WHO NEEDS MARRIAGE?: EQUALITY AND THE ROLE OF THE STATE, 8 J. L. & Fam. Stud. 325, 362+ (2006) HN: 11,15 (N.E.2d) 1174 CASE NOTE: NORMAN V. ANDERSON: UTAH TAKES ITS FIRST STEP IN DEFINING THE LIMITS OF AMENDMENT 3 AND ASKS, DOES AMENDMENT 3 PROHIBIT PUBLICLY FUNDED BENEFITS FOR DOMESTIC PARTNERS?, 8 J. L. & Fam. Stud. 395, 403+ (2006) 1175 FORCES SHAPING THE LAW OF COHABITATION FOR OPPOSITE SEX COUPLES, 7 J. L. & Fam. Stud. 135, 204+ (2005) 1176 WHEN MARRIAGE IS NOT ENOUGH: UTAH'S MARRIAGE AMENDMENT IN CONTEXT, 7 J. L. & Fam. Stud. 275, 287+ (2005) HN: 17,36 (N.E.2d) 1177 MARRIAGE MATTERS, 7 J. L. & Fam. Stud. 303, 315+ (2005) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1178 SPIRITUAL CUSTODY: RELATIONAL RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENTS, 7 J. L. & Fam. Stud. 317, 349+ (2005) HN: 15,31 (N.E.2d) 1179 ADOPTION BY HOMOSEXUALS IN THE WAKE OF LAWRENCE V. TEXAS, 6 J. L. & Fam. Stud. 19, 58 (2004) 1180 WHEN I GROW UP TO BE A MAN: IN RE MARRIAGE APPLICATION FOR NASH, 6 J. L. & Fam. Stud. 323, 330+ (2004) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 1181 "HOW DO YOU GET THERE FROM HERE?"-NAVIGATING THE ROADS TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND BEYOND AFTER GOODRIDGE, 6 J. L. & Fam. Stud. 331, 340+ (2004) HN: 2 (N.E.2d)
1182 UTAH'S PROHIBITION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGES-WILL THE STATUTE STAND OR EVOLVE?, 6 J. L. & Fam. Stud. 419, 427+ (2004) HN: 34,36,42 (N.E.2d) 1183 MUST THEOLOGY ALWAYS SIT IN THE BACK OF THE SECULAR BUS?: THE FEDERAL COURTS' VIEW OF RELIGION AND ITS STATUS AS KNOWLEDGE, 24 J.L. & Religion 547, 568 (2009) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1184 ERASTIAN AND HIGH CHURCH APPROACHES TO THE LAW: THE JURISPRUDENTIAL CATEGORIES OF ROBERT E. RODES, JR., 22 J.L. & Religion 405, 432+ (2007) 1185 CONTINUING TO MEET THE PARENTS, THROUGH THE INTERNATIONAL LAW ROUTE, 12 J. L. & Soc. Challenges 1, 12 (2010) 1186 ORIGINALISM AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 16 U. Pa. J. L. & Soc. Change 237, 280 (2013) HN: 2,36,42 (N.E.2d) 1187 CURRENCY OF LOVE: CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE BATTLE FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN THE UNITED STATES, 14 U. Pa. J. L. & Soc. Change 53, 123+ (2011) 1188 11 J. L. Society 138, DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP HEALTH CARE BENEFITS AFTER NATIONAL PRIDE AT WORK (2010) 1189 CROSSING BORDERS IN THE CLASSROOM: A COMPARATIVE LAW EXPERIMENT IN FAMILY LAW, 55 J. Legal Educ. 542, 559+ (2005) 1190 PROPERTY RIGHTS OF UNMARRIED COHABITANTS-NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN, 25 J. Am. Acad. Matrim. Law. 87, 101 (2012) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1191 BEYOND PRIVATE ORDERING: FAMILIES AND THE SUPPORTIVE STATE, 23 J. Am. Acad. Matrim. Law. 305, 347+ (2010) 1192 ESTATE PLANNING FOR COHABITANTS, 22 J. Am. Acad. Matrim. Law. 1, 28 (2009) 1193 UNITED STATES SURVEY ON DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS, 22 J. Am. Acad. Matrim. Law. 125, 150+ (2009) 1194 MARRIAGE EQUALITY FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES: WHERE WE ARE AND WHERE WE ARE GOING, 22 J. Am. Acad. Matrim. Law. 55, 83+ (2009) 1195 LAW THAT VALUES ALL FAMILIES: BEYOND (STRAIGHT AND GAY) MARRIAGE, 22 J. Am. Acad. Matrim. Law. 85, 104 (2009) 1196 THE WINDING ROAD FROM FORM TO FUNCTION: A BRIEF HISTORY OF CONTEMPORARY MARRIAGE, 21 J. Am. Acad. Matrim. Law. 1, 41 (2008) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 1197 FEDERALIZATION OF FAMILY LAW: A SUPPLEMENTAL ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY, 2001-2006, 20 J. Am. Acad. Matrim. Law. 351, 403+ (2007) 1198 IN THE INTEREST OF CHILDREN OF SAME-SEX COUPLES, 19 J. Am. Acad. Matrim. Law. 255, 276+ (2005) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 1199 BEING HUMAN AND GAY/LESBIAN: A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE
OF CANADIAN AND U.S. POLITICAL DISCOURSE, 2006 J. Inst. Just. Int'l Stud. 139, 142+ (2006) 1200 THE QUESTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY: HOW SEPARATE ARE THE POWERS? THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND SOCIAL RAMIFICATIONS OF LOCKYER V. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, 25 J. Nat'l A. Admin. L. Judges 367, 400 (2005) 1201 LEGITIMACY, YES: BUT AT WHAT COST?, 96 Judicature 209, 212 (2013) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 1202 LEGISLATIVE-JUDICIAL RELATIONS ON CONTESTED ISSUES: TAXES AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 89 Judicature 202, 202+ (2006) 1203 THAT KIND OF SEXE WHICH DOTH PREVAILE: SHIFTING LEGAL PARADIGMS ON THE ONTOLOGY AND MUTABILITY OF SEX, 50 Jurimetrics J. 329, 370+ (2010) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1204 THE CONSTITUTIONAL STATUS OF MORALS LEGISLATION, 98 Ky. L.J. 1, 66 (2010) 1205 NO-FAULT DEATH: WEDDING INHERITANCE RIGHTS TO FAMILY VALUES, 94 Ky. L.J. 319, 359 (2006) 1206 ELIMINATING THE EXCEPTION? LAWRENCE V. TEXAS AND THE ARGUMENTS FOR EXTENDING THE RIGHT TO MARRY TO SAME-SEX COUPLES, 93 Ky. L.J. 813, 838+ (2005) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 1207 OF MONEY AND JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE: CAN INHERENT POWERS PROTECT STATE COURTS IN TOUGH FISCAL TIMES?, 92 Ky. L.J. 979, 1050 (2004) 1208 GAY GENTRIFICATION: WHITEWASHED FICTIONS OF LGBT PRIVILEGE AND THE NEW INTEREST-CONVERGENCE DILEMMA, 31 Law & Ineq. 117, 163+ (2012) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1209 THE FLEXIBLE FAMILY IN THREE DIMENSIONS, 28 Law & Ineq. 291, 306+ (2010) 1210 EQUAL PROTECTION FOR CHILDREN OF GAY AND LESBIAN PARENTS: CHALLENGING THE THREE PILLARS OF EXCLUSIONLEGITIMACY, DUAL-GENDER PARENTING, AND BIOLOGY, 28 Law & Ineq. 307, 332+ (2010) HN: 31,33,34 (N.E.2d) 1211 LOOKING BEYOND FULL RELATIONSHIP RECOGNITION FOR COUPLES REGARDLESS OF SEX: ABOLITION, ALTERNATIVES, AND/OR FUNCTIONALISM, 28 Law & Ineq. 345, 372+ (2010) 1212 MARRIAGE, FREE EXERCISE, AND THE CONSTITUTION, 26 Law & Ineq. 59, 108+ (2008) 1213 STATE MARRIAGE AMENDMENTS AND OVERREACHING: ON PLAIN MEANING, GOOD PUBLIC POLICY, AND CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS, 25 Law & Ineq. 59, 113+ (2007) 1214 DISMEMBERING THE MEAT INDUSTRY PIECE BY PIECE: THE VALUE OF FEDERALISM TO FARM ANIMALS, 23 Law & Ineq. 363, 405 (2005)
1215 LOFTON V. SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & FAMILY SERVICES: FLORIDA'S GAY ADOPTION BAN UNDER IRRATIONAL EQUAL PROTECTION ANALYSIS, 23 Law & Ineq. 407, 428+ (2005) HN: 32 (N.E.2d) 1216 THE MAJORITARIAN DIFFICULTY: AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, SODOMY, AND SUPREME COURT POLITICS, 23 Law & Ineq. 1, 93 (2005) 1217 PERRY V. SCHWARZENEGGER: A LARGE STEP IN THE DIRECTION OF MARRIAGE EQUALITY IN CALIFORNIA, 20 Law & Sexuality 121, 131+ (2011) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 1218 THE GERONIMO BANK MURDERS: A GAY TRAGEDY, 17 Law & Sexuality 39, 73 (2008) 1219 BEYOND RIGHTS AND MORALITY: THE OVERLOOKED PUBLIC HEALTH ARGUMENT FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 17 Law & Sexuality 7, 37+ (2008) HN: 15,32,34 (N.E.2d) 1220 LEWIS V. HARRIS: SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IS A QUESTION FOR THE LEGISLATURE, NOT THE COURTS, 16 Law & Sexuality 157, 168+ (2007) HN: 41 (N.E.2d) 1221 SHARING THE LOVE: THE POLITICAL POWER OF REMEDIAL DELAY IN SAME-SEX MARRIAGE CASES, 15 Law & Sexuality 11, 58+ (2006) HN: 15,31,42 (N.E.2d) 1222 TO HAVE AND TO HOLD-OR NOT: THE INFLUENCE OF THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT ON GAY MARRIAGE LAWS IN THE NETHERLANDS, CANADA, AND THE UNITED STATES, 14 Law & Sexuality 1, 50+ (2005) 1223 COTE-WHITACRE V. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH: DISPROVING THE MISCONCEPTION THAT MASSACHUSETTS CREATED A NATIONAL LOOPHOLE FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 14 Law & Sexuality 169, 180+ (2005) HN: 31,36,38 (N.E.2d) 1224 ANDERSEN V. KING COUNTY: THE BATTLE FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE-WILL WASHINGTON STATE BE THE NEXT TO FALL?, 14 Law & Sexuality 181, 192+ (2005) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 1225 IN RE KANDU: DEFENDING DOMA-DEFERENTIAL WASHINGTON BANKRUPTCY COURT DEALS BLOW TO EQUAL PROTECTION AND DUE PROCESS BY UPHOLDING FEDERAL BAN ON RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 14 Law & Sexuality 193, 204+ (2005) 1226 INTERSEXUALITY AND UNIVERSAL MARRIAGE, 14 Law & Sexuality 51, 133+ (2005) 1227 RECONSIDERING THE GENDER-EQUALITY PERSPECTIVE FOR UNDERSTANDING LGBT RIGHTS, 13 Law & Sexuality 605, 703+ (2004) HN: 36,42 (N.E.2d) 1228 FRAME SPILLOVER: MEDIA FRAMING AND PUBLIC OPINION OF A MULTIFACETED LGBT RIGHTS AGENDA, 38 Law & Soc. Inquiry 403, 408+ (2013) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d)
1229 RELIGION AND THE PRACTICES OF POPULAR CONSTITUTIONALISM: SARAH GORDON'S THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW, 36 Law & Soc. Inquiry 1062, 1073+ (2011) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1230 QUEER LEGAL HISTORY: A FIELD GROWS UP AND COMES OUT, 36 Law & Soc. Inquiry 537, 547+ (2011) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1231 THE MISCEGENATION/SAME-SEX MARRIAGE ANALOGY: WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM LEGAL HISTORY?, 33 Law & Soc. Inquiry 345, 363+ (2008) HN: 31,32,34 (N.E.2d) 1232 (WHEN) ARE RIGHTS WRONG? RIGHTS DISCOURSES AND INDETERMINACY IN GAY AND LESBIAN PARENTS' CUSTODY CASES, 30 Law & Soc. Inquiry 137, 176 (2005) 1233 43 Law and Society Review 151, BEYOND BACKLASH: ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS ON LGBT RIGHTS (2009) HN: 11,38 (N.E.2d) 1234 41 Law and Society Review 748, AMERICA'S STRUGGLE FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE. BY DANIEL R. PINELLO. NEW YORK: CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS, 2006. PP. XIII+213. $55.00 CLOTH; $19.99 PAPER (2007) 1235 39 Law and Society Review 457, SAME-SEX UNIONS AND THE SPECTACLES OF RECOGNITION (2005) 1236 KEEPING UP WITH NEW LEGAL TITLES, 105 Law Libr. J. 231, 241+ (2013) HN: 2,6,34 (N.E.2d) 1237 FIFTY MORE CONSTITUTIONS, 104 Law Libr. J. 331, 339 (2012) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1238 LEGAL INFORMATION AS SOCIAL CAPITAL, 99 Law Libr. J. 267, 283 (2007) 1239 KEEPING UP WITH NEW LEGAL TITLES, 96 Law Libr. J. 733, 755 (2004) 1240 GOD VERSUS GOVERNMENT: UNDERSTANDING STATE AUTHORITY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE MOVEMENT, 7 Liberty U. L. Rev. 235, 266+ (2013) HN: 2,41 (N.E.2d) 1241 THE FIRST AMENDMENT, HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS, AND "NEWSPEAK": HAS THE LANGUAGE SURROUNDING THE MARRIAGE DEBATE ALTERED THE NATURE OF MARRIAGE ITSELF, OR AFFECTED THE TRUTH OF THE ISSUES INHERENT IN ALTERNATIVE MARRIAGE DEMANDS, 4 Liberty U. L. Rev. 593, 615+ (2010) HN: 2,5 (N.E.2d) 1242 PROBLEMS OF CLASSIFICATION, 4 Liberty U. L. Rev. 465, 478+ (2010) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1243 HOW THE CONCEPT OF "SEXUAL ORIENTATION" THREATENS RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, 4 Liberty U. L. Rev. 503, 536 (2010) 1244 A HOUSE DIVIDED: SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND DANGERS TO CIVIL RIGHTS, 4 Liberty U. L. Rev. 537, 591+ (2010) HN: 34,38 (N.E.2d)
1245 TRANSSEXUALISM AND THE BINARY DIVIDE: DETERMINING SEX USING OBJECTIVE CRITERIA, 2 Liberty U. L. Rev. 459, 514+ (2008) 1246 RATIONAL BASIS REVIEW IRRATIONALLY APPLIED: THE LEGALIZATION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE BY THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS IN GOODRIDGE V. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 1 Liberty U. L. Rev. 155, 171+ (2006) HN: 31,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1247 THE LOUISIANA DOMA AS AN IMPROPER IMPEDIMENT TO THE EVOLUTION OF PUBLIC POLICY TOWARD COHABITANTS, 72 La. L. Rev. 789, 813+ (2012) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1248 EVIDENTIARY PRIVILEGES FOR COHABITING PARENTS: PROTECTING CHILDREN INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE, 70 La. L. Rev. 751, 800+ (2010) HN: 31,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1249 WHY THE RULE OF LAW?, 66 La. L. Rev. 63, 94+ (2005) 1250 A CATALYST IN THE COTTON: THE PROPER ALLOCATION OF THE "GOODWILL" OF CLOSELY HELD BUSINESSES AND PROFESSIONAL PRACTICES IN DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGES, 65 La. L. Rev. 1191, 1264+ (2005) HN: 11 (N.E.2d) 1251 COVENANT MARRIAGE SEVEN YEARS LATER: ITS AS YET UNFULFILLED PROMISE, 65 La. L. Rev. 605, 634 (2005) 1252 THE GAY MAN AND HIS CIVIL CODE, 64 La. L. Rev. 443, 458 (2004) 1253 OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND SAMESEX MARRIAGES, 64 La. L. Rev. 459, 475+ (2004) 1254 NO LONGER THE UGLY DUCKLING: THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS RECOGNIZES TRANSSEXUAL CIVIL RIGHTS IN GOODWIN V. UNITED KINGDOM AND SETS THE TONE FOR FUTURE UNITED STATES REFORM, 64 La. L. Rev. 643, 677+ (2004) HN: 17 (N.E.2d) 1255 THE AMERICAN "COVENANT MARRIAGE" IN THE CONFLICT OF LAWS, 64 La. L. Rev. 43, 70 (2003) 1256 13 Loyola Journal of Public Interest Law 115, FROM COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATISM TO CALCULATED INDIFFERENCE: POLITICS TAKES AIM AT AMERICA'S FAMILIES (2011) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1257 11 Loyola Journal of Public Interest Law 87, ALL WHO LIVE IN LOVE (2009) HN: 38 (N.E.2d) 1258 THE "DETERMINATION OF MARRIAGE ACT": A REASONABLE RESPONSE TO THE DISCRIMINATORY "DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT", 58 Loy. L. Rev. 939, 952+ (2012) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1259 VOICES IN THE DARK: SECOND PARENT ADOPTIONS WHEN THE LAW IS SILENT, 50 Loy. L. Rev. 675, 709 (2004) 1260 THE DESCENT OF RESPONSIBLE PROCREATION: A GENEALOGY OF AN IDEOLOGY, 45 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 781, 847+ (2012) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d)
1261 LETTING GO OF A NATIONAL RELIGION: WHY THE STATE SHOULD RELINQUISH ALL CONTROL OVER MARRIAGE, 38 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 2185, 2218+ (2005) HN: 31,32,36 (N.E.2d) 1262 MILITARY DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION: "DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL" AND THE SOLOMON AMENDMENT, 37 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1331, 1371 (2004) 1263 JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN AN AGE OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS, 41 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 327, 349+ (2010) 1264 JUDICIAL IDEOLOGY AND THE SURVIVAL OF THE RULE OF LAW: A FIELD GUIDE TO THE CURRENT POLITICAL WAR OVER THE JUDICIARY, 39 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 427, 468 (2008) 1265 THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, SAME-SEX UNIONS, AND THE SUPREME COURT, 38 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 215, 244+ (2007) 1266 MARRIAGE, SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS, AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, 38 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 247, 264+ (2007) 1267 THE DIFFERENCE THE MINI-DOMAS MAKE, 38 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 265, 278 (2007) 1268 LESSONS FROM THE BILL OF RIGHTS ABOUT CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION FOR MARRIAGE, 38 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 279, 322 (2007) 1269 THE STATE OF THE LAW OF PROTECTING AND SECURING THE RIGHTS OF SAME-SEX PARTNERS IN ILLINOIS WITHOUT BENEFIT OF STATUTORY RIGHTS ACCORDED HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES, 38 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 323, 348+ (2007) 1270 THE MORAL REASONING OF FAMILY LAW: THE CASE OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 38 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 349, 377+ (2007) 1271 DECEMBER SONG: THE WAITING GAME FOR TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY IN MAINE, 20 Me. B.J. 18, 25 (2005) 1272 DENYING MARRIAGE RIGHTS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, 19 Me. B.J. 78, 78+ (2004) HN: 31,32 (N.E.2d) 1273 THE CROSSROADS OF A LEGAL FICTION AND THE REALITY OF FAMILIES, 61 Me. L. Rev. 319, 351+ (2009) 1274 THE DEBATE OVER THE DENIAL OF MARRIAGE RIGHTS AND BENEFITS TO SAME-SEX COUPLES AND THEIR CHILDREN, 4 Margins: Md. L.J. Race, Religion, Gender & Class 127, 135+ (2004) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 1275 DO MOMS AND DADS MATTER? EVIDENCE FROM THE SOCIAL SCIENCES ON FAMILY STRUCTURE AND THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD, 4 Margins: Md. L.J. Race, Religion, Gender & Class 161, 168+ (2004) HN: 31,32,34 (N.E.2d) 1276 SEMIOTICS OF THE SCANDALOUS AND THE IMMORAL AND THE DISPARAGING: SECTION 2(A) TRADEMARK LAW AFTER LAWRENCE V. TEXAS, 9 Marq. Intell. Prop. L. Rev. 187, 248 (2005)
1277 LIFTING THE VEIL ON RIGOROUS RATIONAL BASIS SCRUTINY, 96 Marq. L. Rev. 377, 460+ (2012) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1278 CONFLICTS OF LAW AND POLICY RELATING TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE RECOGNITION IN WISCONSIN, 94 Marq. L. Rev. 721, 755+ (2010) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1279 FRAMING CHANGE: CAUSE LAWYERING, CONSTITUTIONAL DECISIONS, AND SOCIAL CHANGE, 94 Marq. L. Rev. 263, 310+ (2010) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1280 SAME-SEX DIVORCE AND WISCONSIN COURTS: IMPERFECT HARMONY?, 92 Marq. L. Rev. 617, 649+ (2009) HN: 17 (N.E.2d) 1281 WISCONSIN'S CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT HABIT: A DISEASE OR A CURE?, 90 Marq. L. Rev. 667, 700 (2007) 1282 "THE GREAT DIVORCE" OF GOVERNMENT AND MARRIAGE: CHANGING THE NATURE OF THE GAY MARRIAGE DEBATE, 89 Marq. L. Rev. 795, 819+ (2006) HN: 15,31,36 (N.E.2d) 1283 IN THE LIGHT OF REASON AND EXPERIENCE: SHOULD FEDERAL EVIDENCE LAW PROTECT CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN SAME-SEX PARTNERS?, 88 Marq. L. Rev. 815, 845+ (2005) HN: 32,36 (N.E.2d) 1284 "NO DRINKING, NO DRUGS, NO LESBIANS": SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION IN INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS, 17 Marq. Sports L. Rev. 481, 501 (2007) HN: 32 (N.E.2d) 1285 FROM STONEWALL TO THE SUPREME COURT, 46-OCT Md. B.J. 4, 4 (2013) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1286 THE CONSTITUTIONAL INEVITABILITY OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 71 Md. L. Rev. 471, 489+ (2012) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1287 OSCAR WILDE'S LONG TAIL: FRAMING SEXUAL IDENTITY IN THE LAW, 70 Md. L. Rev. 985, 1043+ (2011) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1288 SMOKE, NOT FIRE, 65 Md. L. Rev. 197, 205 (2006) 1289 MARRIAGE, BIOLOGY, AND PATERNITY: THE CASE FOR REVITALIZING THE MARITAL PRESUMPTION, 65 Md. L. Rev. 246, 270 (2006) 1290 JURISTOCRACY IN THE AMERICAN STATES?, 65 Md. L. Rev. 68, 81+ (2006) 1291 INTRODUCTION, 88 Mass. L. Rev. 154, 154 (2004) HN: 37 (N.E.2d) 1292 GOODRIDGE: SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND THE MASSACHUSETTS CONSTITUTION Hillary Goodridge & Others v. Department of Public Health & Another, 440 Mass. 309 (2003), 88 Mass. L. Rev. 155, 157+ (2004) HN: 15,31,34 (N.E.2d) 1293 THE GOODRIDGE DECISION AND THE RIGHT TO MARRY Hillary Goodridge & Others v. Department of Public Health & Another, 440 Mass. 309
(2003), 88 Mass. L. Rev. 161, 161+ (2004) HN: 32,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1294 A CLEARING IN THE FOREST: LAW, LIFE, AND MIND BY STEVEN L. WINTER (UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS 2001) 426 PAGES, 88 Mass. L. Rev. 165, 169 (2004) 1295 THE PERFECT STORM, THE PERFECT CULPRIT: HOW A METAPHOR OF FATE FIGURES IN JUDICIAL OPINIONS, 43 McGeorge L. Rev. 323, 358+ (2012) HN: 2,34 (N.E.2d) 1296 "WEDLOCK DEADLOCK": EQUAL PROTECTION VERSUS THE WILL OF THE VOTERS, 38 McGeorge L. Rev. 545, 569+ (2007) HN: 32,34 (N.E.2d) 1297 DIVESTING FROM "THE APARTHEID OF THE CLOSET": TOWARD AN ENRICHED LEGAL DISCOURSE OF SEXUAL AND GENDER IDENTITY, 38 McGeorge L. Rev. 571, 602+ (2007) 1298 Activism from the Closet: Gay Rights Strategising in Egypt, 7 Melb. J. Int'l L. 28, 51 (2006) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1299 GEORGIA'S CHILDRENON OUR MINDS . . ., 55 Mercer L. Rev. 1415, 1451+ (2004) 1300 CIVIL MARRIAGE: THREAT TO DEMOCRACY, 18 Mich. J. Gender & L. 361, 421+ (2012) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1301 TANGO OR MORE? FROM CALIFORNIA'S LESSON 9 TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A GAY-FRIENDLY CURRICULUM IN PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, 17 Mich. J. Gender & L. 315, 319+ (2011) 1302 TAXING CIVIL RIGHTS GAINS, 16 Mich. J. Gender & L. 319, 396+ (2010) HN: 15 (N.E.2d) 1303 THE GAY AGENDA, 16 Mich. J. Gender & L. 147, 216+ (2009) HN: 15,31,34 (N.E.2d) 1304 "PLEASE WRITE "E' IN THIS BOX" TOWARD SELF-IDENTIFICATION AND RECOGNITION OF A THIRD GENDER: APPROACHES IN THE UNITED STATES AND INDIA, 14 Mich. J. Gender & L. 223, 258 (2008) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 1305 THE EVOLUTION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN CANADA: LESSONS THE U.S. CAN LEARN FROM THEIR NORTHERN NEIGHBOR REGARDING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE RIGHTS, 15 Mich. J. Gender & L. 143, 204+ (2008) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 1306 CHAOS, LAW, AND GOD: THE RELIGIOUS MEANINGS OF HOMOSEXUALITY, 15 Mich. J. Gender & L. 41, 119+ (2008) 1307 "JUST" MARRIED?: SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND A HISTORY OF FAMILY PLURALITY, 12 Mich. J. Gender & L. 1, 85+ (2005) HN: 31,32,34 (N.E.2d) 1308 RESTRUCTURING THE MARITAL BEDROOM: THE ROLE OF THE PRIVACY DOCTRINE IN ADVOCATING THE LEGALIZATION OF SAMESEX MARRIAGE, 11 Mich. J. Gender & L. 1, 26+ (2004) HN: 17,22 (N.E.2d) 1309 IS A BURRITO A SANDWICH? EXPLORING RACE, CLASS, AND
CULTURE IN CONTRACTS, 14 Mich. J. Race & L. 1, 59 (2008) 1310 SAME-SEX LOVING: SUBVERTING WHITE SUPREMACY THROUGH SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 13 Mich. J. Race & L. 177, 225+ (2007) HN: 15,31,42 (N.E.2d) .... FAMILY HISTORY: INSIDE AND OUT, 111 Mich. L. Rev. 1001, 1005+ (2013) (Text not available on WESTLAW) .... TYRONE GARNER'S LAWRENCE V. TEXAS, 111 Mich. L. Rev. 1111, 1121+ (2013) (Text not available on WESTLAW) 1313 THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO(KEEP YOUR) SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 110 Mich. L. Rev. 1421, 1481+ (2012) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1314 ELY AT THE ALTAR: POLITICAL PROCESS THEORY THROUGH THE LENS OF THE MARRIAGE DEBATE, 109 Mich. L. Rev. 1363, 1411+ (2011) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1315 ASSESSING THE STATE OF STATE CONSTITUTIONALISM, 109 Mich. L. Rev. 1145, 1161 (2011) 1316 DISGUST AND THE PROBLEMATIC POLITICS OF SIMILARITY, 109 Mich. L. Rev. 943, 961 (2011) 1317 CONSTITUTIONAL BORROWING, 108 Mich. L. Rev. 459, 522+ (2010) HN: 15,17 (N.E.2d) 1318 SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS AFTER GONZALES V. CARHART, 106 Mich. L. Rev. 1517, 1541+ (2008) 1319 FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS?, 106 Mich. L. Rev. 189, 242+ (2007) 1320 THE GLUCKSBERG RENAISSANCE: SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS SINCE LAWRENCE V. TEXAS, 105 Mich. L. Rev. 409, 444 (2006) 1321 FREE WILL TO WILL? A CASE FOR THE RECOGNITION OF INTESTACY RIGHTS FOR SURVIVORS TO A SAME-SEX MARRIAGE OR CIVIL UNION, 104 Mich. L. Rev. 1763, 1783+ (2006) 1322 BROWN AND LAWRENCE (AND GOODRIDGE), 104 Mich. L. Rev. 431, 489+ (2005) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 1323 GAY POLITICS AND PRECEDENTS, 103 Mich. L. Rev. 1186, 1230 (2005) 1324 FOREWORD: LOVING LAWRENCE, 102 Mich. L. Rev. 1447, 1463 (2004) 1325 SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND THE PARADOX OF HEIGHTENED SCRUTINY, 102 Mich. L. Rev. 1528, 1554+ (2004) HN: 32,33 (N.E.2d) 1326 LAWRENCE V. TEXAS AND JUDICIAL HUBRIS, 102 Mich. L. Rev. 1555, 1614+ (2004) 1327 FOR AND AGAINST MARRIAGE: A REVISION, 102 Mich. L. Rev. 129, 212 (2003) 1328 FREEDOM AND EQUALITY ON THE INSTALLMENT PLAN, 108 Mich. L. Rev. First Impressions 76, 81 (2010) 1329 "MACHISMO AT THE CROSSROADS - RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN COSTA RICAN GAY RIGHTS LAW", 20 Mich. St. Int'l. L. Rev. 421, 439
(2012) 1330 THE EYE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL STORM: PREELECTION REVIEW BY THE STATE JUDICIARY OF INITIATIVE AMENDMENTS TO STATE CONSTITUTIONS, 2012 Mich. St. L. Rev 1279, 1314+ (2012) HN: 41 (N.E.2d) 1331 TOWARD MORE PARSIMONY AND TRANSPARENCY IN "THE ESSENTIALS OF MARRIAGE", 2011 Mich. St. L. Rev 83, 139+ (2011) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1332 E-MARRIAGE: "DOT COM" OR "DOT ORG?", 2011 Mich. St. L. Rev 209, 215 (2011) 1333 THE EPITOME OF FALSE START: IT IS TIME TO REFORM THE NATIONAL LETTER OF INTENT, 23 Midwest L.J. 1, 41 (2009) 1334 EQUAL PROTECTION, DUE PROCESS, AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: THE REFORMATION CONTINUES, 20 Midwest L.J. 23, 23+ (2006) HN: 15,31,36 (N.E.2d) .... DIRECT DEMOCRACY AND CAMPAIGNS AGAINST MINORITIES, 97 Minn. L. Rev. 1730, 1779+ (2013) HN: 2,6,34 (N.E.2d) (Text not available on WESTLAW) 1336 SUBSTANTIVE EQUALITY: A PERSPECTIVE, 96 Minn. L. Rev. 1, 27+ (2011) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 1337 IDENTITY SCRIPTS & DEMOCRATIC DELIBERATION, 94 Minn. L. Rev. 897, 971+ (2010) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 1338 THE LIMITS OF BACKLASH: ASSESSING THE POLITICAL RESPONSE TO KELO, 93 Minn. L. Rev. 2100, 2178 (2009) 1339 HORIZONTAL FEDERALISM, 93 Minn. L. Rev. 493, 584 (2008) 1340 AMENDING THE EXCEPTIONS CLAUSE, 92 Minn. L. Rev. 971, 1030 (2008) 1341 THE BILL OF RIGHTS IN THE EARLY STATE COURTS, 92 Minn. L. Rev. 1, 82 (2007) 1342 IMMIGRATION LAW AND THE REGULATION OF MARRIAGE, 91 Minn. L. Rev. 1625, 1709+ (2007) 1343 SHOULD THE SUPREME COURT FEAR CONGRESS?, 90 Minn. L. Rev. 1337, 1362+ (2006) 1344 WHY THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT IS NOT (YET?) UNCONSTITUTIONAL: LAWRENCE, FULL FAITH AND CREDIT, AND THE MANY SOCIETAL ACTORS THAT DETERMINE WHAT THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES, 90 Minn. L. Rev. 915, 1001 (2006) 1345 MARRIAGE LICENSES, 89 Minn. L. Rev. 1758, 1797+ (2005) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 1346 LAWRENCE'S JURISPRUDENCE OF TOLERANCE: JUDICIAL REVIEW TO LOWER THE STAKES OF IDENTITY POLITICS, 88 Minn. L. Rev. 1021, 1102 (2004) HN: 38 (N.E.2d) 1347 LIVING WITH LAWRENCE, 88 Minn. L. Rev. 1103, 1139 (2004)
1348 IS LAWRENCE LIBERTARIAN?, 88 Minn. L. Rev. 1140, 1170 (2004) 1349 THE POSITIVE IN THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO MARRY: SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN THE AFTERMATH OF LAWRENCE V. TEXAS, 88 Minn. L. Rev. 1184, 1232+ (2004) HN: 15,31,32 (N.E.2d) 1350 MORALS-BASED JUSTIFICATIONS FOR LAWMAKING: BEFORE AND AFTER LAWRENCE V. TEXAS, 88 Minn. L. Rev. 1233, 1311 (2004) 1351 REACTIVE AND INCOMPLETELY THEORIZED STATE CONSTITUTIONAL DECISION-MAKING, 77 Miss. L.J. 265, 313+ (2007) 1352 CONSCIENCE, TOTALITARIANISM, AND THE POSITIVIST MIND, 77 Miss. L.J. 571, 621+ (2007) 1353 DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO PRIVACY: THE SUPREME COURT'S ULTIMATE TRUMP CARD, 69 Mo. L. Rev. 831, 851+ (2004) HN: 19 (N.E.2d) 1354 ADAR v. SMITH: PENALIZING INNOCENT CHILDREN FOR THE "SINS" OF THE PARENTS, 8 Mod. Am. 35, 46 (2012) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1355 THE IRRATIONALITY OF A RATIONAL BASIS: DENYING BENEFITS TO THE CHILDREN OF SAME-SEX COUPLES, 3 Mod. Am. 3, 12+ (2007) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1356 EQUAL MARRIAGE RIGHTS FOR TRANSGENDERED INDIVIDUALS, 3 Mod. Am. 66, 71 (2007) 1357 GONZALES V. CARHART: BRINGING ABORTION LAW BACK INTO THE FAMILY LAW FOLD, 69 Mont. L. Rev. 409, 445+ (2008) 1358 THE COURTS' CONFUSED (AND CONFUSING) UNDERSTANDING OF THE CREATION AND TAKING OF HUMAN LIFE, 68 Mont. L. Rev. 265, 283 (2007) 1359 PRIVACY AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: THE CASE FOR TREATING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AS A HUMAN RIGHT, 68 Mont. L. Rev. 335, 361+ (2007) HN: 15 (N.E.2d) 1360 MONTANA'S MARRIAGE AMENDMENT: UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DENYING A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, 66 Mont. L. Rev. 405, 443+ (2005) HN: 15,31,32 (N.E.2d) 1361 "WE LIVE NOT ON WHAT WE HAVE": REFLECTIONS ON THE BIRTH OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS TEST CASE STRATEGY AND ITS LESSONS FOR TODAY'S SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LITIGATION CAMPAIGN, 19 Nat'l Black L.J. 175, 202+ (2007) 1362 REVERSAL OF FORTUNE: THE INAPPOSITE STANDARDS APPLIED TO REMEDIAL RACE-, GENDER-, AND ORIENTATION-BASED CLASSIFICATIONS, 92 Neb. L. Rev. 1, 23+ (2013) 1363 "INCORPORATION" OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AMENDMENTS: THE VIEW FROM THE STATES, 84 Neb. L. Rev. 397, 468 (2005) 1364 NOT ON "SHAKY GROUNDS" : LAWRENCE V. TEXAS, 123 S. CT. 2472 (2003), AND THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATE DOMAS SUCH AS
NEBRASKA'S MARRIAGE PROVISION, NEB. CONST. ART. I, S 29, 83 Neb. L. Rev. 179, 224+ (2004) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1365 6 Nev. L.J. 774, COMING OUT FOR KIDS: RECOGNIZING, RESPECTING, AND REPRESENTING LGBTQ YOUTH (2006) 1366 5 Nev. L.J. 370, HOPE AND MISGIVING ABOUT LAWYERS, CONSENSUSBUILDING, AND SOCIAL PROBLEM-SOLVING (2005) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1367 PUBLIC POLICY AND THE RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 12-FEB Nev. Law. 32, 32+ (2004) HN: 11,36 (N.E.2d) 1368 JURISPRUDENCE AND CONFLICTS OF LAW-POSSIBLE MESSAGES FOR AND FROM THE UK SUPREME COURT, 18 New Eng. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 1, 27+ (2012) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1369 GAY MARRIAGE IN CANADA: STRATEGIES OF THE GAY LIBERATION MOVEMENT AND THE IMPLICATIONS IT WILL HAVE ON THE UNITED STATES, 10 New Eng. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 175, 213+ (2004) HN: 31,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1370 WHEN THE HONEYMOON IS OVER: HOW A FEDERAL COURT'S DENIAL OF THE SPOUSAL PRIVILEGE TO A LEGALLY MARRIED SAME-SEX COUPLE CAN RESULT IN THE INCARCERATION OF A SPOUSE WHO REFUSES TO ADVERSELY TESTIFY, 33 New Eng. J. on Crim. & Civ. Confinement 243, 243+ (2007) 1371 WHEN EVIDENTIARY RULES ENFORCE SUBSTANTIVE POLICIES: SAME-SEX MARITAL PRIVILEGE UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 501 IN DIVERSITY CASES, 46 New Eng. L. Rev. 303, 328+ (2012) HN: 2,12 (N.E.2d) 1372 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND THE MASSACHUSETTS CONSTITUTION, 45 New Eng. L. Rev. 815, 833+ (2011) 1373 FOR TRAILBLAZERS, WHEN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION IS NOT ENOUGH, 45 New Eng. L. Rev. 855, 878+ (2011) HN: 32,36 (N.E.2d) 1374 BIG LOVE OR BIG PROBLEM: SHOULD POLYGAMOUS RELATIONSHIPS BE A FACTOR IN DETERMINING CHILD CUSTODY?, 43 New Eng. L. Rev. 105, 134+ (2008) 1375 JUSTICE MARTHA B. SOSMAN AND THE JURISPRUDENCE OF RIGHTS AND REMEDIES, 42 New Eng. L. Rev. 397, 406+ (2008) HN: 31,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1376 ATTITUDE ISSUES: THE DIFFICULTY OF USING PERSONAL AND IDEOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS TO PREDICT JUSTICE MARTHA B. SOSMAN'S DECISION IN GOODRIDGE V. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 42 New Eng. L. Rev. 407, 452+ (2008) HN: 27,31 (N.E.2d) 1377 THE DISSENTS OF JUSTICE MARTHA B. SOSMAN: JUDICIAL RESTRAINT AND INTELLECTUAL HONESTY, 42 New Eng. L. Rev. 453, 469+ (2008) HN: 30 (N.E.2d) 1378 THE CONDUCT COMMISSION AND AGREED DISPOSITION: LIMITING
JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE IN MASSACHUSETTS, 42 New Eng. L. Rev. 509, 547 (2008) 1379 CHIPPING AT THE ICEBERG: HOW MASSACHUSETTS ANTIDISCRIMINATION LAW CAN SURVIVE ERISA PREEMPTION AND MANDATE THE EXTENSION OF EMPLOYEE BENEFITS TO ALL MARRIED SPOUSES WITHOUT REGARD TO SEXUAL ORIENTATION, 42 New Eng. L. Rev. 109, 110+ (2007) HN: 31,36,42 (N.E.2d) 1380 A MARRIAGE OF PRINCIPLES: THE RELEVANCE OF FEDERAL PRECEDENT AND INTERNATIONAL SOURCES OF LAW IN ANALYZING CLAIMS FOR A RIGHT TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 41 New Eng. L. Rev. 683, 710+ (2007) 1381 NINE QUESTIONS ABOUT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE CONFLICTS, 40 New Eng. L. Rev. 361, 408+ (2006) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 1382 RECKONING WITH DISSONANCE: THOUGHTS ON STATE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND CONSTITUTIONAL DISCOURSE, 40 New Eng. L. Rev. 437, 445+ (2006) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1383 "TIL CONGRESS DO US PART: THE MARRIAGE PROTECTION ACT, FEDERAL COURT-STRIPPING, AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 40 New Eng. L. Rev. 619, 661+ (2006) HN: 17,31,42 (N.E.2d) 1384 TURNING PARENTAL RIGHTS INTO PARENTAL OBLIGATIONSHOLDING SAME-SEX, NON-BIOLOGICAL PARENTS RESPONSIBLE FOR CHILD SUPPORT, 39 New Eng. L. Rev. 921, 960+ (2005) 1385 LOSS OF CONSORTIUM CLAIMS BY UNMARRIED COHABITANTS IN THE SHADOW OF GOODRIDGE: HAS THE MASSACHUSETTS SJC MISAPPREHENDED THE RELATIONAL INTEREST IN CONSORTIUM AS A PROPERTY INTEREST?, 39 New Eng. L. Rev. 163, 206+ (2004) HN: 11,13,19 (N.E.2d) 1386 INTRODUCTION, 38 New Eng. L. Rev. 487, 491+ (2004) 1387 KEYNOTE ADDRESS Civil Marriage For Same-sex Couples, 38 New Eng. L. Rev. 495, 504 (2004) 1388 THE MASSACHUSETTS SAME-SEX MARRIAGE CASE: COULD DECISIONS FROM CANADA, EUROPE, AND SOUTH AFRICA HELP THE SJC?, 38 New Eng. L. Rev. 505, 526+ (2004) HN: 13 (N.E.2d) 1389 THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF EXCLUDING SAME-SEX COUPLES FROM MARRIAGE, 38 New Eng. L. Rev. 555, 561 (2004) 1390 THE INEVITABILITY OF GAY MARRIAGE, 38 New Eng. L. Rev. 563, 567+ (2004) 1391 THE CANADIAN EARTHQUAKE: SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN CANADA, 38 New Eng. L. Rev. 591, 620+ (2004) 1392 TO WED & LET WED? THE INTRUSIVE IMPACT ON DISSENTING RELIGIOUS BELIEF & PRACTICES CREATED BY SAME-SEX MARRIAGES, 38 New Eng. L. Rev. 621, 628+ (2004) HN: 34 (N.E.2d)
1393 MORAL REALISM AND THE ADOPTION OF CHILDREN BY HOMOSEXUALS, 38 New Eng. L. Rev. 643, 665 (2004) 1394 MARRIAGE: AN ACHIEVEMENT OF CENTURIES FOR THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN, 38 New Eng. L. Rev. 683, 688+ (2004) 1395 GRANDPARENT VISITATION RIGHTS IN MASSACHUSETTS AFTER TROXEL: BLIXT V. BLIXT, 38 New Eng. L. Rev. 759, 806+ (2004) HN: 24 (N.E.2d) 1396 THE FIGHT TO BE A PARENT: HOW COURTS HAVE RESTRICTED THE CONSTITUTIONALLY-BASED CHALLENGES AVAILABLE TO HOMOSEXUALS, 38 New Eng. L. Rev. 841, 896+ (2004) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 1397 AFTER THE CEREMONY New Jersey's Same-Sex Relationships Get a Hostile Reception, 239-APR N.J. Law. 11, 16+ (2006) 1398 THE CHANGING AND UNCERTAIN STATUS OF SAME-SEX FAMILIES, 236-OCT N.J. Law. 16, 22 (2005) 1399 MARRIAGE EQUALITY IN NEW JERSEY?, 233-APR N.J. Law. 35, 38+ (2005) 1400 LIFTING A LAMP WILL NEW JERSEY CREATE A SAFE HARBOR FOR GAY AND LESBIAN IMMIGRATION RIGHTS?, 227-APR N.J. Law. 22, 27+ (2004) 1401 THE IRRATIONAL LEGACY OF ROMER V. EVANS: A DECADE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW REVEALS THE NEED FOR HEIGHTENED SCRUTINY OF LEGISLATION THAT DENIES EQUAL PROTECTION TO MEMBERS OF THE GAY COMMUNITY, 36 N.M. L. Rev. 565, 601+ (2006) 1402 A SMALL STEP FORWARD IN THE LAST CIVIL RIGHTS BATTLE: EXTENDING BENEFITS UNDER FEDERALLY REGULATED EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS TO SAME-SEX COUPLES, 36 N.M. L. Rev. 99, 124+ (2006) HN: 32,34 (N.E.2d) 1403 NEW TORT RULES FOR UNMARRIED PARTNERS: THE ENHANCED POTENTIAL FOR SUCCESSFUL LOSS OF CONSORTIUM AND NIED CLAIMS BY SAME SEX PARTNERS IN NEW MEXICO AFTER LOZOYA, 34 N.M. L. Rev. 461, 487+ (2004) HN: 31 (N.E.2d) 1404 STATE V. URIOSTE: A PROSECUTOR'S DREAM AND DEFENDER'S NIGHTMARE, 34 N.M. L. Rev. 517, 537 (2004) HN: 38 (N.E.2d) 1405 ENFORCEMENT OF TRIBAL COURT TAX JUDGMENTS OUTSIDE OF INDIAN COUNTRY: THE WAYS AND MEANS, 34 N.M. L. Rev. 339, 379 (2004) 1406 DEVIANT DREAMS: EXTREME ASSOCIATES AND THE CASE FOR PORN, 10 N.Y. City L. Rev. 155, 197 (2006) 1407 RUTHANN ROBSON: WRITING LIFE AND FICTION-THEORY, 8 N.Y. City L. Rev. 401, 414 (2005) 1408 FOR THE SAKE OF ALL CHILDREN: OPPONENTS AND SUPPORTERS OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE BOTH MISS THE MARK, 8 N.Y. City L. Rev. 573,
598+ (2005) HN: 31,32,34 (N.E.2d) 1409 REFLECTIONS ON COMPLICITY, 8 N.Y. City L. Rev. 657, 679+ (2005) HN: 16 (N.E.2d) 1410 REIMAGINING THE RIGHT TO COMMERCIAL SEX: THE IMPACT OF LAWRENCE V. TEXAS ON PROSTITUTION STATUTES, 9 N.Y. City L. Rev. 161, 181 (2005) 1411 FEAR OF THE QUEER MARRIAGE: THE NEXUS OF TRANSSEXUAL MARRIAGES AND U.S. IMMIGRATION LAW, 9 N.Y. City L. Rev. 209, 247 (2005) 1412 NEW YORK RECOGNITION OF A LEGAL STATUS FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES: A RAPIDLY DEVELOPING STORY, 54 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 479, 492 (2010) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 1413 NEW JERSEY'S CIVIL UNIONS LAW: A CONSTITUTIONAL "EQUAL" CREATES INEQUALITY, 52 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 169, 182+ (2008) 1414 THE IMPACT OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DEVELOPMENTS ON SEXUAL MINORITY RIGHTS, 49 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 525, 535+ (2005) 1415 THE USE AND ABUSE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE IN THE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE DEBATE, 49 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 537, 560+ (2005) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 1416 LANGAN V. ST. VINCENT'S HOSPITAL (Decided April 10, 2003), 48 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 871, 885 (2004) 1417 A MATCH MADE IN ALBANY: THE UNEASY WEDDING OF MARRIAGE EQUALITY AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, 84-JAN N.Y. St. B.J. 38, 38+ (2012) HN: 2,6,34 (N.E.2d) 1418 AFTER GODFREY v. SPANO: IS NEW YORK'S HIGH COURT READY TO RECOGNIZE OUT-OF-STATE SAME-SEX MARRIAGES?, 82-MAY N.Y. St. B.J. 30, 30 (2010) 1419 SAME-SEX MARRIAGE UNDER NEW YORK LAW Advising Clients in a State of Uncertainty, 78-JAN N.Y. St. B.J. 40, 40 (2006) 1420 LAWRENCE V. TEXAS AND FAMILY LAW: GAY PARENTS' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IN CHILD CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS, 60 N.Y.U. Ann. Surv. Am. L. 53, 96 (2004) 1421 SLICING THE AMERICAN PIE: FEDERALISM AND PERSONAL LAW, 40 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L. & Pol. 941, 1018+ (2008) 1422 LEGISLATIVE AND CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSES TO GOODRIDGE V. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 7 N.Y.U. J. Legis. & Pub. Pol'y 465, 485+ (2004) 1423 STAGING THE FAMILY, 88 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 589, 651+ (2013) HN: 2,22,36 (N.E.2d) 1424 THE OTHER LOVING: UNCOVERING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S RACIAL REGULATION OF MARRIAGE, 86 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1361, 1443
(2011) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 1425 IN GOODRIDGE'S WAKE: REFLECTIONS ON THE POLITICAL, PUBLIC, AND PERSONAL REPERCUSSIONS OF THE MASSACHUSETTS SAMESEX MARRIAGE CASES, 85 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1417, 1438+ (2010) HN: 17 (N.E.2d) 1426 THE ANTI-STEREOTYPING PRINCIPLE IN CONSTITUTIONAL SEX DISCRIMINATION LAW, 85 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 83, 173+ (2010) 1427 JUDITH KAYE AS A CHIEF AMONG CHIEFS, 84 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 671, 675 (2009) 1428 THE NEW ROLE OF STATE SUPREME COURTS AS ENGINES OF COURT REFORM, 81 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1535, 1552 (2006) 1429 PLURALISM IN AMERICA: WHY JUDICIAL DIVERSITY IMPROVES LEGAL DECISIONS ABOUT POLITICAL MORALITY, 81 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1206, 1247+ (2006) 1430 "WISE PARENTS DO NOT HESITATE TO LEARN FROM THEIR CHILDREN": INTERPRETING STATE CONSTITUTIONS IN AN AGE OF GLOBAL JURISPRUDENCE, 79 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1633, 1656 (2004) 1431 NEITHER ICARUS NOR OSTRICH: STATE CONSTITUTIONS AS AN INDEPENDENT SOURCE OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, 79 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1833, 1872+ (2004) HN: 15,17,31 (N.E.2d) .... WHAT MARRIAGE EQUALITY ARGUMENTS PORTEND FOR DOMESTIC PARTNER EMPLOYEE BENEFITS, 37 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 49, 58+ (2013) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) (Text not available on WESTLAW) .... "NOW YOU GET WHAT YOU WANT, DO YOU WANT MORE?", 37 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 101, 111 (2013) (Text not available on WESTLAW) .... SLIGHTING THE SEX-DISCRIMINATION CLAIM IN HOLLINGSWORTH V. PERRY, 37 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 151, 163+ (2013) HN: 32,34 (N.E.2d) (Text not available on WESTLAW) .... HOW HAS PERRY AFFECTED OTHER MARRIAGE-RIGHTS LITIGATION STRATEGIES? REFLECTIONS ON A SILVER ANNIVERSARY AND THE GOLDEN RULE, 37 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 165, 172+ (2013) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) (Text not available on WESTLAW) .... THE PERRY LITIGATION AND THE CHANGING POLITICAL LANDSCAPE FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY, 37 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 181, 186 (2013) (Text not available on WESTLAW) .... THE ROLE OF PUBLIC LAW OFFICES IN MARRIAGE EQUALITY LITIGATION, 37 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 187, 198 (2013) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) (Text not available on WESTLAW) .... AN EPHEMERAL MOMENT: MINIMALISM, EQUALITY, AND FEDERALISM IN THE STRUGGLE FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE RIGHTS, 37 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 199, 202+ (2013) (Text not available on WESTLAW)
.... PERRY'S PATH TO EQUALITY: REJECTING "GAY MARRIAGE" AND RETHINKING THE "RIGHT TO MARRY", 37 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 215, 227+ (2013) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) (Text not available on WESTLAW) .... PARADIGMS LOST: HOW DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP WENT FROM INNOVATION TO INJURY, 37 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 291, 305+ (2013) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) (Text not available on WESTLAW) 1441 THE PROPER ROLE OF MORALITY IN STATE POLICIES ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS, 35 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 81, 102 (2011) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 1442 FOREWORD, 30 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 351, 357 (2006) 1443 MONOGAMY'S LAW: COMPULSORY MONOGAMY AND POLYAMOROUS EXISTENCE, 29 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 277, 376+ (2004) HN: 33,36 (N.E.2d) 1444 SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY: LIFE AFTER PROP 8, 14 Nexus: Chap. J. L. & Pol'y 101, 111 (2009) 1445 HUGO BLACK AND JUDICIAL LAWMAKING: FORTY YEARS IN RETROSPECT, 14 Nexus: Chap. J. L. & Pol'y 3, 15+ (2009) 1446 JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PRIVACY CLAIMS: THE ALLURE OF ORIGINALISM AND THE UNAPPRECIATED PROMISE OF CONSTRAINED NONORIGINALISM, 14 Nexus: Chap. J. L. & Pol'y 31, 44 (2009) 1447 "ACTIVIST" COURTS, MISLEADING WEDGE POLITICS AND THE TRAGEDY OF PROPOSITION 8, 14 Nexus: Chap. J. L. & Pol'y 69, 79 (2009) 1448 OHIO ISSUE 1 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, 28 N.C. Cent. L.J. 1, 31+ (2005) 1449 THE UNDOCUMENTED CLOSET, 92 N.C. L. Rev. 1, 74 (2013) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1450 THE GEOGRAPHY OF SEXUALITY, 90 N.C. L. Rev. 955, 1025 (2012) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 1451 NO EXIT: THE PROBLEM OF SAME-SEX DIVORCE, 90 N.C. L. Rev. 73, 124+ (2011) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1452 OUT OF STEP: WHY PULLIAM V. SMITH SHOULD BE OVERRULED TO HOLD ALL NORTH CAROLINA PARENTS-GAY AND STRAIGHT-TO THE SAME CUSTODY STANDARD, 87 N.C. L. Rev. 257, 304+ (2008) 1453 TURNING STONES OF HOPE INTO BOULDERS OF RESISTANCE: THE FIRST AND LAST TASK OF SOCIAL JUSTICE CURRICULUM, SCHOLARSHIP, AND PRACTICE, 86 N.C. L. Rev. 673, 738 (2008) 1454 THREE THEORIES OF SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS, 85 N.C. L. Rev. 63, 148+ (2006) 1455 AWAKENING THE MORAL CONSCIOUSNESS: ON THE NUMBING OF THE CONSCIENCE OF A NATION, 83 N.C. L. Rev. 289, 321 (2004) HN: 42 (N.E.2d)
1456 WHAT'S WRONG WITH A PARENTHOOD MARKET? A New and Improved Theory of Commodification, 82 N.C. L. Rev. 1, 59 (2003) 1457 IN RE TENANCY BY THE ENTIRETY-MARRIED COUPLES, COMMON LAW MARRIAGES, AND SAME-SEX PARTNERS: ORTH V. ORTH, 85 N.D. L. Rev. 287, 300 (2009) 1458 THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD AND THE RIGHTS OF THE PARENT: DAMRON V. DAMRON AND THE FUTURE OF PARENTING AND CHILD CUSTODY IN NORTH DAKOTA, 84 N.D. L. Rev. 999, 1034+ (2008) HN: 17,22,34 (N.E.2d) 1459 DOES THE FAMILY HAVE A FUTURE?, 83 N.D. L. Rev. 1273, 1297+ (2007) 1460 MARRIAGE MATTERS: A CASE FOR A GET-THE-JOB-DONE-RIGHT FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT, 83 N.D. L. Rev. 1301, 1363+ (2007) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1461 THE QUESTION RAISED BY LAWRENCE: MARRIAGE, THE SUPREME COURT AND A WRITTEN CONSTITUTION, 83 N.D. L. Rev. 1393, 1412+ (2007) 1462 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-CIVIL RIGHTS: THE SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN SODOMY STATUTE BY CREATING NEW LIBERTIES AND INVALIDATING OLD LAWS LAWRENCE V. TEXAS, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), 80 N.D. L. Rev. 323, 354+ (2004) HN: 22 (N.E.2d) 1463 TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT: IMPLICATIONS OF THE SEX DISCRIMINATION PRESENT IN SAME-SEX MARRIAGE EXCLUSIONS FOR THE NEXT SUPREME COURT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE CASE, 34 N. Ill. U. L. Rev. 1, 37+ (2013) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1464 WHAT COULD AMERICAN INDIAN LAW POSSIBLY HAVE TO DO WITH THE ISSUE OF GAY-MARRIAGE RECOGNITION?: DEFINITIONAL JURISPRUDENCE, EQUAL PROTECTION AND FULL FAITH AND CREDIT, 24 N. Ill. U. L. Rev. 563, 587+ (2004) 1465 THE WEDDING BELLS HEARD AROUND THE WORLD: YEARS FROM NOW, WILL WE WONDER WHY WE WORRIED ABOUT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE?, 24 N. Ill. U. L. Rev. 589, 676+ (2004) HN: 31,32,34 (N.E.2d) 1466 DE-CLOTHING SEX-BASED CLASSIFICATIONS - SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IS JUST THE BEGINNING: ACHIEVING FORMAL SEX EQUALITY IN THE MODERN ERA, 36 N. Ky. L. Rev. 1, 43+ (2009) 1467 THE CONTRACTUAL ALTERNATIVE TO MARRIAGE, 32 N. Ky. L. Rev. 125, 155+ (2005) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1468 THE WORST WAY OF SELECTING JUDGES-EXCEPT ALL THE OTHERS THAT HAVE BEEN TRIED, 32 N. Ky. L. Rev. 267, 304+ (2005) 1469 THE MOONSCAPE OF TAX EQUALITY: WINDSOR AND BEYOND, 108 Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy 110, 129+ (2013) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1470 HETEROSEXUALITY AND MILITARY SERVICE, 104 Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy 341, 365 (2010)
1471 SEEING IT, KNOWING IT, 104 Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy 217, 237 (2009) 1472 EIGHT IS ENOUGH, 103 Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy 501, 513 (2009) 1473 HUMAN RIGHTS AND GLOBALIZATION: PUTTING THE RACE TO THE TOP IN PERSPECTIVE, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy 319, 331 (2008) 1474 HUMAN RIGHTS AND GLOBALIZATION: PUTTING THE RACE TO THE TOP IN PERSPECTIVE, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy 319, 331 (2008) 1475 'TIL DEATH DO US PART: THE DIFFICULTIES OF OBTAINING A SAMESEX DIVORCE, 8 NW J. L. & Soc. Pol'y 208, 235+ (2013) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1476 MISCONSTRUCTING SEXUALITY IN SAME-SEX MARRIAGE JURISPRUDENCE, 6 NW J. L. & Soc. Pol'y 238, 238+ (2011) HN: 15,31,32 (N.E.2d) 1477 CLARION CALL OR FALSE ALARM: WHY PROPOSED EXEMPTIONS TO EQUAL MARRIAGE STATUTES RETURN US TO A RELIGIOUS UNDERSTANDING OF THE PUBLIC MARKETPLACE, 5 NW J. L. & Soc. Pol'y 236, 259+ (2010) 1478 WHY ACCOMMODATE? REFLECTIONS ON THE GAY MARRIAGE CULTURE WARS, 5 NW J. L. & Soc. Pol'y 260, 273 (2010) 1479 SAME-SEX FAMILY EQUALITY AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, 5 NW J. L. & Soc. Pol'y 274, 278+ (2010) HN: 38 (N.E.2d) 1480 INSUBSTANTIAL BURDENS: THE CASE FOR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE EXEMPTIONS TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LAWS, 5 NW J. L. & Soc. Pol'y 318, 368+ (2010) 1481 SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR THE UAFA: A BILL FOR SAME-SEX BINATIONAL COUPLES, 4 NW J. L. & Soc. Pol'y 150, 55+ (2009) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1482 THE PRICE OF PLEASURE, 104 Nw. U. L. Rev. 917, 977+ (2010) 1483 HUMAN RIGHTS AND GLOBALIZATION: PUTTING THE RACE TO THE TOP IN PERSPECTIVE, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 2021, 2033 (2008) 1484 DEMOCRATIZING THE LAW OF FEDERAL PREEMPTION, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 507, 550 (2008) 1485 ASSISTED REPRODUCTION AND THE LAW: DISHARMONY ON A DIVISIVE SOCIAL ISSUE, 100 Nw. U. L. Rev. 465, 479 (2006) 1486 SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, SLIPPERY SLOPE RHETORIC, AND THE POLITICS OF DISGUST: A CRITICAL PERSPECTIVE ON CONTEMPORARY FAMILY DISCOURSE AND THE INCEST TABOO, 99 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1543, 1611+ (2005) 1487 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACROSS STATE LINES: THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE, CONGRESSIONAL POWER, AND INTERSTATE ENFORCEMENT OF PROTECTION ORDERS, 98 Nw. U. L. Rev. 827, 906+ (2004)
1488 MARRIAGE IS THE FOUNDATION OF THE FAMILY, 18 Notre Dame J.L. Ethics & Pub. Pol'y 1, 6+ (2004) 1489 LAW AND THE CULTURE OF MARRIAGE, 18 Notre Dame J.L. Ethics & Pub. Pol'y 189, 217+ (2004) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 1490 DEBUNKING "CONSERVATIVE" ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT, 18 Notre Dame J.L. Ethics & Pub. Pol'y 219, 223 (2004) 1491 A NATURAL LAW MANIFESTO OR AN APPEAL FROM THE OLD JURISPRUDENCE TO THE NEW, 87 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1245, 1275 (2012) 1492 INTUITION, MORALS, AND THE LEGAL CONVERSATION ABOUT GAY RIGHTS, 32 Nova L. Rev. 523, 539 (2008) 1493 A PUBLIC LECTURE: IT IS TIME TO TELL THE TRUTH, 32 Nova L. Rev. 541, 555 (2008) 1494 INCORPORATING ISSUES OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION INTO A FIRST YEAR PROPERTY LAW COURSE: RELEVANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY, 32 Nova L. Rev. 595, 608 (2008) 1495 IS THE RENAISSANCE STILL ALIVE IN MICHIGAN? OR JUST EXTRINSIC? TRANSSEXUALS' RIGHTS AFTER NATIONAL PRIDE AT WORK, 35 Ohio N.U. L. Rev. 107, 154 (2009) 1496 JUDICIAL REGIMES AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: ENFORCING JUDICIALLY DETERMINED PERSONAL AUTONOMY AT THE EXPENSE OF MAJORITARIAN DEMOCRACY, 35 Ohio N.U. L. Rev. 619, 645+ (2009) 1497 STATE V. CARSWELL 114 Ohio St. 3d 210, 2007 Ohio 3723, 871 N.E.2d 547 Decided July 25, 2007, 34 Ohio N.U. L. Rev. 1017, 1024+ (2008) 1498 SAME-SEX COUPLES AND THE TAX LAW: TAX FILING STATUS FOR LESBIANS AND OTHERS, 33 Ohio N.U. L. Rev. 19, 39+ (2007) 1499 TOWARD THE STUDY OF THE LEGISLATED CONSTITUTION, 72 Ohio St. L.J. 1343, 1366 (2011) 1500 MARRIAGE AND PARENTHOOD AS STATUS AND RIGHTS: THE GROWING, PROBLEMATIC AND POSSIBLY CONSTITUTIONAL TREND TO DISAGGREGATE FAMILY STATUS FROM FAMILY RIGHTS, 71 Ohio St. L.J. 127, 186+ (2010) HN: 15,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1501 INTERSTATE RECOGNITION OF PARENTAGE IN A TIME OF DISHARMONY: SAME-SEX PARENT FAMILIES AND BEYOND, 70 Ohio St. L.J. 563, 617 (2009) 1502 CELEBRATING THE DIFFERENCES THAT COULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE: UNITED STATES V. VIRGINIA AND A NEW VISION OF SEXUAL EQUALITY, 70 Ohio St. L.J. 943, 1001+ (2009) HN: 17,32 (N.E.2d) 1503 SCIENCE AND CONSTITUTIONAL FACT FINDING IN EQUAL PROTECTION ANALYSIS, 69 Ohio St. L.J. 1115, 1172 (2008) 1504 THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE: ROMER AS THE GROUNDWORK
FOR CHALLENGING STATE "DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE" AMENDMENTS, 68 Ohio St. L.J. 1419, 1467+ (2007) HN: 11,15 (N.E.2d) 1505 THE POPULIST SAFEGUARDS OF FEDERALISM, 68 Ohio St. L.J. 1669, 1731 (2007) 1506 THE GIFT OF ENRON: AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT CAPITALISM, EQUALITY, GLOBALIZATION, AND THE PROMISE OF A NORTH-AMERICAN CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, 66 Ohio St. L.J. 315, 396+ (2005) 1507 LIBERTY AFTER LAWRENCE, 65 Ohio St. L.J. 1059, 1079 (2004) 1508 LAWRENCE, THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AND THE SUPREME COURT'S RELIANCE ON FOREIGN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: AN ORIGINALIST REAPPRAISAL, 65 Ohio St. L.J. 1097, 1131 (2004) 1509 QUERYING LAWRENCE, 65 Ohio St. L.J. 1151, 1240+ (2004) HN: 17 (N.E.2d) 1510 INTERSTATE RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX CIVIL UNIONS AFTER LAWRENCE v. TEXAS, 65 Ohio St. L.J. 1265, 1282 (2004) 1511 A LEGAL DOCTRINE FOR THE STARTER MARRIAGE, 33 Okla. City U. L. Rev. 793, 822+ (2008) HN: 31,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1512 WALKING THE EXECUTIVE SPEECH TIGHTROPE: FROM STARBUCKS TO CHICK-FIL-A, 65 Okla. L. Rev. 573, 604 (2013) HN: 2,6,34 (N.E.2d) 1513 RESURRECTING COMITY: REVISITING THE PROBLEM OF NONUNIFORM MARRIAGE LAWS, 84 Or. L. Rev. 433, 488+ (2005) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 1514 FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, FUNDAMENTALLY WRONGED: OREGON'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL STAND ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 84 Or. L. Rev. 861, 905+ (2005) HN: 15,31,32 (N.E.2d) 1515 DEFYING CLASSIFICATION: INTESTACY ISSUES FOR TRANSSEXUAL SURVIVING SPOUSES, 82 Or. L. Rev. 1155, 1190 (2003) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 1516 A DOUBLE BLESSING: OUR STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS, 30 Pace L. Rev. 844, 854 (2010) 1517 MULTISTABLE FIGURES: SEXUAL ORIENTATION VISIBILITY AND ITS EFFECTS ON THE EXPERIENCES OF SEXUAL MINORITIES IN THE COURTS, 27 Pace L. Rev. 141, 198+ (2007) HN: 15 (N.E.2d) 1518 SWEET LAND OF LIBERTY: THE CASE AGAINST THE FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT, 24 Pace L. Rev. 301, 355+ (2003) HN: 31,32,36 (N.E.2d) 1519 THE MARRIAGE AMENDMENT ACT: CAN AUSTRALIA PROHIBIT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE?, 16 Pac. Rim L. & Pol'y J. 137, 165+ (2007) HN: 11,13 (N.E.2d) 1520 NO MORE WAITING FOR REVOLUTION: JAPAN SHOULD TAKE POSITIVE ACTION TO IMPLEMENT THE CONVENTION ON THE
ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN, 13 Pac. Rim L. & Pol'y J. 611, 643 (2004) HN: 37 (N.E.2d) 1521 GAY MARRIAGE: ANALYZING LEGAL STRATEGIES FOR REFORM IN HONG KONG AND THE UNITED STATES, 13 Pac. Rim L. & Pol'y J. 771, 805+ (2004) HN: 15,36 (N.E.2d) 1522 DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS: WHAT THE UNITED STATES SHOULD LEARN FROM FRANCE'S EXPERIENCE, 24 Penn St. Int'l L. Rev. 683, 705+ (2006) 1523 WHY MARRIAGE IS STILL THE BEST DEFAULT IN ESTATE PLANNING CONFLICTS, 117 Penn St. L. Rev. 1219, 1255 (2013) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 1524 PATH DEPENDENCE AND THE EXTERNAL CONSTRAINTS ON INDEPENDENT STATE CONSTITUTIONALISM, 115 Penn St. L. Rev. 783, 836+ (2011) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1525 STATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROCESSES AND THE SAFEGUARDS OF AMERICAN FEDERALISM, 115 Penn St. L. Rev. 1007, 1034+ (2011) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 1526 HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES IN STATE COURTS: THE INTERNATIONAL PROSPECTS OF STATE CONSTITUTIONALISM AFTER MEDELLN, 115 Penn St. L. Rev. 1051, 1072+ (2011) HN: 32 (N.E.2d) 1527 EXPLAINING SUB-NATIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL SPACE, 115 Penn St. L. Rev. 1133, 1149 (2011) 1528 NOBODY LIKES A SOPHIST UNTIL THEY NEED ONE, 110 Penn St. L. Rev. 923, 931+ (2006) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 1529 OUT OF THE SHADOWS: THE POSITIVE IMPACT OF LAWRENCE V. TEXAS ON VICTIMS OF SAME-SEX DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, 109 Penn St. L. Rev. 1251, 1277+ (2005) HN: 31,36,42 (N.E.2d) 1530 MAINTENANCE PAYMENTS AND SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS: WHEN AN EX-SPOUSE "COHABITATES" WITH A MEMBER OF THE SAME SEX, 109 Penn St. L. Rev. 317, 336+ (2004) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 1531 MOVING FORWARD TOGETHER: THE LGBT COMMUNITY AND THE FAMILY MEDIATION FIELD, 6 Pepp. Disp. Resol. L.J. 295, 311 (2006) 1532 EQUAL PROTECTION, SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, AND CLASSIFYING ON THE BASIS OF SEX, 38 Pepp. L. Rev. 1021, 1052 (2011) HN: 32,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1533 MARRIAGE IN CALIFORNIA: IS THE FEDERAL LAWSUIT AGAINST PROPOSITION 8 ABOUT APPLYING THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OR PRESERVING FEDERALISM?, 38 Pepp. L. Rev. 161, 209+ (2010) 1534 INTERMITTENT STATE CONSTITUTIONALISM, 34 Pepp. L. Rev. 41, 103+ (2006) 1535 5 Phoenix L. Rev. 151, THE SEX LESS SCRUTINIZED: THE CASE FOR SUSPECT CLASSIFICATION FOR SEXUAL ORIENTATION (2011) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d)
1536 PROTECTING PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIPS: DETERMINING PARENTAL RIGHTS OF SAME-SEX PARENTS CONSISTENTLY DESPITE VARYING RECOGNITION OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP, 5 Pierce L. Rev. 1, 30+ (2006) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1537 CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT AND THE LEGISLATURE: CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 4 Pierce L. Rev. 279, 316 (2006) 1538 SODOMY AND PROSTITUTION: LAWS PROTECTING THE "FABRIC OF SOCIETY", 3 Pierce L. Rev. 101, 124 (2004) 1539 WILL FILING STATUS BE PORTABLE? TAX IMPLICATIONS OF INTERSTATE RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 4 Pitt. Tax. Rev. 137, 154+ (2007) HN: 22,36,42 (N.E.2d) 1540 EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES AND DOMESTIC PARTNERS, 52 NO. 1 Prac. Law. 37, 38+ (2006) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 1541 ROUNDUP OF SIGNIFICANT INCOME TAX DEVELOPMENTS IN 2004, 74 Prac. Tax Strategies 26, 34 (2005) 1542 SAME-SEX UNIONS AROUND THE WORLD Marriage, Civil Unions, Registered Partnerships-What Are the Differences and Why do They Matter?, 19-OCT Prob. & Prop. 31, 33+ (2005) HN: 34,36,42 (N.E.2d) 1543 WHAT IS EQUALITY? ARGUING THE REALITY AND DISPELLING THE MYTH: AN INQUIRY IN A LEGAL DEFINITION FOR THE AMERICAN CONTEXT, 27 Quinnipiac L. Rev. 113+ (2009) HN: 15 (N.E.2d) 1544 THE LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES: THE FAR-REACHING EFFECTS OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE BAN AMENDMENTS, 25 Quinnipiac L. Rev. 211+ (2006) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 1545 ROSENGARTEN V. DOWNES: CONNECTICUT REFUSES TO DISSOLVE VERMONT CIVIL UNION (FNd1), 22 QLR 523, 568+ (2004) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 1546 ESTATE PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS FOR UNMARRIED SAME OR OPPOSITE SEX COHABITANTS, 23 QLR 361, 394+ (2004) 1547 TAX CONSEQUENCES OF UNMARRIED COHABITATION, 23 QLR 395, 409+ (2004) HN: 17 (N.E.2d) 1548 AGAINST REDEFINING MARRIAGE: A REVIEW AND CRITIQUE OF RECENT LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS, 23 QLR 427, 446+ (2004) HN: 32,34 (N.E.2d) 1549 DOES SEX MAKE BABIES? MARRIAGE, SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND LEGAL JUSTIFICATIONS FOR THE REGULATION OF INTIMACY IN A POST-LAWRENCE WORLD, 23 QLR 447, 472+ (2004) HN: 32 (N.E.2d) 1550 THE UNAVOIDABLE INFLUENCE OF RELIGION UPON THE LAW OF MARRIAGE, 23 QLR 493, 528+ (2004) HN: 7,15 (N.E.2d) 1551 REMARKS OF ROBERT WINTEMUTE: INTERNATIONAL TRENDS IN LEGAL RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX PARTNERSHIPS, 23 QLR 577, 595 (2004)
1552 AFTERWORD: DEBATE AND DECISION-MAKING ABOUT MARRIAGE RIGHTS IN CONNECTICUT: ENVISIONING A THIRD WAY, 23 QLR 597, 613+ (2004) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 1553 THE HARD EDGE OF KULTURKAMPF: CULTURAL VIOLENCE, POLITICAL BACKLASHES AND JUDICIAL RESISTANCE TO LAWRENCE AND BROWN, 23 QLR 707, 736+ (2004) HN: 31,32,34 (N.E.2d) 1554 FATHER-ABSENCE, SOCIAL EQUALITY, AND SOCIAL PROGRESS, 29 Quinnipiac L. Rev. 123, 163 (2011) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1555 LIBERALISM IN LOVE, 28 Quinnipiac L. Rev. 593, 616 (2010) 1556 SEPARATE BUT EQUAL? SAME SEX COUPLES IN NEW ENGLAND, 35 Real Est. L.J. 558, 558+ (2007) 1557 THE INCENTIVE PROBLEM WITH PROSPECTIVE OVERRULING: A CRITIQUE OF THE PRACTICE, 45 Real Prop. Tr. & Est. L.J. 179, 208 (2010) 1558 LEGAL ISSUES OF MATERNITY AND INHERITANCE FOR THE BIOTECH CHILD OF THE 21ST CENTURY, 43 Real Prop. Tr. & Est. L.J. 393, 418 (2008) 1559 5 Regent Journal of International Law 183, THE TUG OF WAR BETWEEN FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDOMS AND ANTIDISCRIMINATION: A LOOK AT THE RISING CONFLICT OF HOMOSEXUAL LEGISLATION (2007) HN: 38 (N.E.2d) 1560 5 Regent Journal of International Law 237, AN INTERNATIONAL EXAMINATION OF SAME-SEX PARENT ADOPTION (2007) 1561 5 Regent Journal of International Law 269, FROM POLITICAL QUESTIONS TO HUMAN RIGHTS: THE GLOBAL DEBATE ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. LAW (2007) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 1562 3 Regent Journal of International Law 1, FEDERAL COURTS ENFORCING CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW: THE SALUTARY EFFECT OF SOSA V. ALVAREZ-MACHAIN ON THE INSTITUTIONAL LEGITIMACY OF THE JUDICIARY (2005) 1563 ADOPTION: UPSIDE DOWN AND SIDEWAYS? SOME CAUSES OF AND REMEDIES FOR DECLINING DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL ADOPTIONS, 26 Regent U. L. Rev. 209, 270+ (2014) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1564 AS GOES DOMA ... DEFENDING DOMA AND THE STATE MARRIAGE MEASURES, 24 Regent U. L. Rev. 1, 47+ (2012) HN: 2,34,42 (N.E.2d) 1565 "CHARITABLE" DISCRIMINATION: WHY TAXPAYERS SHOULD NOT HAVE TO FUND 501(C)(3) ORGANIZATIONS THAT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST LGBT EMPLOYEES, 24 Regent U. L. Rev. 403, 431 (2012) 1566 ENFORCING A TRADITIONAL MORAL CODE DOES NOT TRIGGER A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION'S LOSS OF TAX EXEMPTION, 24 Regent U. L. Rev. 433, 458 (2012) 1567 THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT AS AN EFFICACIOUS EXPRESSION OF PUBLIC POLICY: TOWARDS A RESOLUTION OF MILLER V. JENKINS
AND THE EMERGING CONFLICT BETWEEN STATES OVER SAME-SEX PARENTING, 20 Regent U. L. Rev. 363, 388+ (2008) HN: 31,32 (N.E.2d) 1568 A BRIEF CATECHISM ON MARRIAGE, 18 Regent U. L. Rev. 301, 313+ (2006) HN: 32 (N.E.2d) 1569 THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM - CONTRACEPTION AND THE RENAISSANCE OF TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE, 18 Regent U. L. Rev. 315, 325+ (2006) 1570 A SUPREME COURT THAT IS "WILLING TO START DOWN THAT ROAD": THE SLIPPERY SLOPE OF LAWRENCE v. TEXAS, 17 Regent U. L. Rev. 125, 146+ (2005) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 1571 DOMA AND MARRIAGE, 17 Regent U. L. Rev. 203, 209+ (2005) HN: 41 (N.E.2d) 1572 JUDICIAL USURPATION AND SEXUAL LIBERATION: COURTS AND THE ABOLITION OF MARRIAGE, 17 Regent U. L. Rev. 21, 28+ (2005) 1573 THE NECESSITY OF A FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT, 17 Regent U. L. Rev. 211, 211+ (2005) HN: 15,31,36 (N.E.2d) 1574 STATUS, SUBSTANCE, AND STRUCTURE: AN INTERPRETIVE FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERSTANDING THE STATE MARRIAGE AMENDMENTS, 17 Regent U. L. Rev. 221, 221+ (2005) HN: 38 (N.E.2d) 1575 COHABITATION AND THE FUTURE OF MARRIAGE, 17 Regent U. L. Rev. 261, 277 (2005) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1576 EL DERECHO DE FAMILIA EN ESPANA, HOY: DEL MATRIMONIO INDISOLUBLE AL MATRIMONIO ENTRE PERSONAS DEL MISMO SEXO, 75 Rev. Jur. U.P.R. 935, 1028 (2006) 1577 EL RECONOCIMIENTO LEGAL DEL MATRIMONIO HOMOSEXUAL EN LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS DE AMRICA Y ALGUNOS PROBLEMAS DE FEDERALISMO, 74 Rev. Jur. U.P.R. 1213, 1231 (2005) 1578 REFORMA DEL DERECHO INTERNACIONAL PRIVADO PUERTORRIQUEO EN EL MATRIMONIO Y SU RGIMEN ECONMICO, 43 Rev. Juridica U. Inter. P.R. 151, 190 (2008) 1579 6/21/2004 RIA-PBW SAME-SEX DOMESTIC PARTNER BENEFITS CURRENT LEGAL AND PLAN DRAFTING ISSUES: PART 1 (2004) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 1580 "TILL DEATH (OR DOMA) DOES US PART": HOW DOMA IMPOSES AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL CLASSIFYING AND COERCIVE CONDITION ON FEDERAL FUNDING IN THE WAKE OF MASSACHUSETTS v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, 14 Rich. J.L. & Pub. Int. 611, 639+ (2011) HN: 7,38 (N.E.2d) 1581 "TIL PROPOSITION 8 DO US PART: THE RISE AND FALL OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN CALIFORNIA, 12 Rich. J.L. & Pub. Int. 265, 281 (2009) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1582 THE GREAT DEBATE: LESSONS TO BE LEARNED FROM AN
INTERNATIONAL COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 16 Roger Williams U. L. Rev. 577, 607+ (2011) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1583 CHAMBERS V. ORMISTON: THE HARMFUL AND DISCRIMINATORY AVOIDANCE OF THE LAWS OF COMITY AND PUBLIC POLICY FOR VALID SAME-SEX MARRIAGES, 15 Roger Williams U. L. Rev. 187, 216+ (2010) HN: 17 (N.E.2d) 1584 2007 SURVEY OF RHODE ISLAND LAW Cases, 13 Roger Williams U. L. Rev. 819, 825 (2008) HN: 17 (N.E.2d) 1585 GAY MARRIAGE IN RHODE ISLAND: A BIG ISSUE IN A SMALL STATE, 12 Roger Williams U. L. Rev. 291, 312+ (2007) HN: 32,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1586 FAMILY LAW Cote-Whitacre v. Department of Public Health, No. 04-2656, 2006 WL 3208758 (Mass. Super. Sept. 29, 2006)., 12 Roger Williams U. L. Rev. 604, 609 (2007) HN: 17 (N.E.2d) 1587 LAWRENCE V. TEXAS: EVOLUTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE, 9 Roger Williams U. L. Rev. 565, 577+ (2004) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 1588 TO-GET-HER FOREVER: A MAN HATER'S RIGHT TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 10 Rutgers J. L. & Pub. Pol'y 63, 98+ (2013) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1589 THE UNEQUAL APPLICATION OF NEW JERSEY'S ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION ACT, 5 Rutgers J. L. & Pub. Pol'y 594, 629 (2008) 1590 DWORKIN, MARRIAGE, MEANINGS - AND NEW JERSEY IS DEMOCRACY POSSIBLE HERE? BY RONALD DWORKIN. PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY: PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS AUGUST, 2006, 4 Rutgers J. L. & Pub. Pol'y 271, 293+ (2007) 1591 A QUEER ALLIANCE: GAY MARRIAGE AND THE NEW FEDERALISM, 4 Rutgers J. L. & Pub. Pol'y 200, 200+ (2006) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 1592 CANAANITES, CATHOLICS AND THE CONSTITUTION DEVELOPING CHURCH DOCTRINE, SECULAR LAW AND WOMEN PRIESTS, 7 Rutgers Journal of Law & Religion 3+ (2005) 1593 THE RELIGIOUS LIBERTY ARGUMENT FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND ITS EFFECT UPON LEGAL RECOGNITION, 7 Rutgers Journal of Law & Religion 4+ (2005) 1594 SURVEYING CONSTITUTIONAL TERRITORY: BOOK REVIEW OF LAWRENCE FRIEDMAN & LYNNEA THODY'S THE MASSACHUSETTS STATE CONSTITUTION, 42 Rutgers L.J. 913, 919+ (2011) 1595 RANDOM HETEROGENEOUS MATERIALS? THE ROBERT WILLIAMS BOOK, NEWS FROM FLORIDA, THE STUFF OF STATE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW RECONCEIVED, 41 Rutgers L.J. 931, 966 (2010) 1596 EQUAL PROTECTION-SUPREME COURT OF IOWA INVALIDATES A STATE STATUTE LIMITING CIVIL MARRIAGE TO A UNION BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. VARNUM v. BRIEN, 763 N.W.2D 862 (IOWA 2009)., 41 Rutgers L.J. 1205, 1226+ (2010) HN: 2 (N.E.2d)
1597 STATE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-EQUAL PROTECTION AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS-ANALOGIZING SAME- SEX MARRIAGE EXCLUSIONS AND ANTI- MISCEGENATION LAWS: CALIFORNIA OFFERS A MODEL FOR SUBJECTING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE EXCLUSIONS TO STRICT SCR, 40 Rutgers L.J. 1031, 1067+ (2009) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 1598 SUBNATIONAL CONSTITUTIONS AND MINORITY RIGHTS: A PERSPECTIVE ON CANADIAN PROVINCIAL CONSTITUTIONALISM, 40 Rutgers L.J. 767, 792 (2009) 1599 STATE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-EQUAL PROTECTION-WHY SEPARATE IS NOT EQUAL IN CONNECTICUT. STATUTORY PROHIBITION OF MARRIAGE BETWEEN SAME-SEX COUPLES IS VIOLATIVE OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE CONNECTICUT CONSTITUTION., 40 Rutgers L.J. 855, 884+ (2009) 1600 STATE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-MARRIAGE- MICHIGAN MARRIAGE AMENDMENT BARS PUBLIC EMPLOYERS FROM PROVIDING HEALTH BENEFITS TO SAME-SEX PARTNERS OF EMPLOYEES. National Pride at Work, Inc. v. Governor of Michigan, 748 N.W.2d 524, 40 Rutgers L.J. 995, 1013 (2009) 1601 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT, EQUAL PROTECTION, AND DUE PROCESS-THE RIGHT OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IS NOT FUNDAMENTAL, PROHIBITING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE GENDER-BASED DISCRIMINATION, AND RESTRICTI, 39 Rutgers L.J. 1003, 1035+ (2008) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1602 RECONSIDERING RATIONAL BASIS: EQUAL PROTECTION REVIEW UNDER THE WISCONSIN CONSTITUTION, 38 Rutgers L.J. 1071, 1085+ (2007) 1603 EQUAL PROTECTION-"AND NOW, BY THE POWER VESTED IN THE PEOPLE OF NEW JERSEY YOU WILL NOT BE PRONOUNCED. . ." POPULAR CONSTITUTIONALISM AND THE STRUGGLE FOR SAME- SEX MARRIAGE. LEWIS V. HARRIS, 908 A.2D 196 (N.J. 2006)., 38 Rutgers L.J. 1215, 1234+ (2007) HN: 31,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1604 STATE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-EQUAL PROTECTION & DUE PROCESS - NONRESIDENT, SAME-SEX MARRIAGE APPLICANTS NOT TO OBTAIN MASSACHUSETTS MARRIAGE LICENSE IF PROHIBITED FROM OBTAINING A LEGAL MARRIAGE IN THEIR HOME STATE. COTE-WHI, 38 Rutgers L.J. 1235, 1264+ (2007) HN: 31,32,33 (N.E.2d) 1605 INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS-RATIONAL BASIS REVIEW REVEALS THAT WASHINGTON STATUTE FORBIDDING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND IMPLICATES THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO MARRIAGE. ANDERSEN V. KING COUNTY, 138 P.3D 963 (WASH. 2006, 38 Rutgers L.J. 1299, 1327+ (2007) HN: 31 (N.E.2d)
1606 SAME-SEX MARRIAGE - NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS DENIES INDIVIDUALS THE ABILITY TO MARRY THEIR SAME-SEX PARTNERS. HERNANDEZ V. ROBLES, 855 N.E.2D 1 (N.Y. 2006)., 38 Rutgers L.J. 1431, 1451+ (2007) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 1607 FOREWORD: COURT-CONSTRAINING AMENDMENTS AND THE STATE CONSTITUTIONAL TRADITION, 38 Rutgers L.J. 983, 1039 (2007) HN: 38 (N.E.2d) 1608 LIBERATING ESTATES LAW FROM THE CONSTRAINTS OF COPYRIGHT, 38 Rutgers L.J. 109, 190 (2006) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 1609 REDISTRICTING AND THE NEW JUDICIAL FEDERALISM: REAPPORTIONMENT LITIGATION UNDER STATE CONSTITUTIONS, 37 Rutgers L.J. 1087, 1132 (2006) 1610 EQUAL PROTECTION-STATE BENEFIT PROGRAM OFFERED TO STATE EMPLOYEES' SPOUSES BUT NOT TO UNMARRIED EMPLOYEES' DOMESTIC PARTNERS WAS UNABLE TO WITHSTAND MINIMUM SCRUTINY UNDER THE ALASKA CONSTITUTION WHICH HAS HISTORICALLY G, 37 Rutgers L.J. 1513, 1527+ (2006) HN: 21 (N.E.2d) 1611 THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY IN STATE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 37 Rutgers L.J. 971, 1045+ (2006) HN: 15,31,34 (N.E.2d) 1612 EXILED FROM THE PROVINCE OF CARE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, DUTY AND CONCEPTIONS OF STATE ACCOUNTABILITY, 37 Rutgers L.J. 111, 195 (2005) 1613 STATE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENTS REVISITED: EVALUATING THEIR EFFECTIVENESS IN ADVANCING PROTECTION AGAINST SEX DISCRIMINATION, 36 Rutgers L.J. 1201, 1293+ (2005) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 1614 EQUAL PROTECTION-INDIVIDUAL AUTONOMY RIGHTS AND EQUALITY UNDER THE MASSACHUSETTS CONSTITUTION PROHIBIT THE EXCLUSION OF SAME-SEX COUPLES FROM CIVIL MARRIAGE. GOODRIDGE V. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 798 N.E.2D 941 (MASS, 36 Rutgers L.J. 1381, 1407+ (2005) HN: 15,31,34 (N.E.2d) 1615 LOCAL GOVERNMENT-LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICIALS WHO REFUSED TO ENFORCE STATE MARRIAGE STATUTES BY ISSUING GENDERNEUTRAL MARRIAGE LICENSES TO SAME-SEX COUPLES EXCEEDED THEIR AUTHORITY. LOCKYER V. CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,, 36 Rutgers L.J. 1503, 1516+ (2005) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1616 THE END OR JUST THE BEGINNING FOR GAY RIGHTS UNDER THE NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTION?: THE NEW JERSEY DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP ACT, LEWIS V. HARRIS, AND THE FUTURE OF GAY RIGHTS IN NEW JERSEY, 36 Rutgers L.J. 289, 349+ (2004) HN: 31,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1617 INTRODUCTION, 35 Rutgers L.J. 1247, 1247 (2004) 1618 FOREWORD: STATE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW LECTURE: PRAGMATIC
CONSTITUTIONALISM-REFLECTIONS ON STATE CONSTITUTIONAL THEORY AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE CLAIMS, 35 Rutgers L.J. 1249, 1266+ (2004) HN: 41 (N.E.2d) 1619 A LITTLE OLDER, A LITTLE WISER, AND STILL COMMITTED, 61 Rutgers L. Rev. 507, 527 (2009) 1620 EQUALITY AND JUSTICE FOR LESBIAN AND GAY FAMILIES AND RELATIONSHIPS, 61 Rutgers L. Rev. 529, 560 (2009) 1621 MARRIAGE OR LIBERATION?: REFLECTIONS ON TWO STRATEGIES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LESBIAN AND GAY RIGHTS AND RELATIONSHIP RECOGNITION, 61 Rutgers L. Rev. 567, 593+ (2009) 1622 THE 2007 CHIEF JUSTICE JOSEPH WEINTRAUB LECTURE: THE NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT: A LEADERSHIP COURT IN INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, 60 Rutgers L. Rev. 705, 722 (2008) 1623 NEW JERSEY DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP ACT IN THE AFTERMATH OF LEWIS V. HARRIS: SHOULD NEW JERSEY EXPAND THE ACT TO INCLUDE ALL UNMARRIED COHABITANTS?, 60 Rutgers L. Rev. 519, 546 (2008) 1624 LEWIS V. HARRIS: ESSAY ON A SETTLED QUESTION AND AN OPEN QUESTION, 59 Rutgers L. Rev. 221, 232+ (2007) 1625 "HOW DOES SAME-SEX MARRIAGE THREATEN YOU?", 59 Rutgers L. Rev. 233, 264 (2007) 1626 MARRIAGE AND THE UTOPIAN TEMPTATION, 59 Rutgers L. Rev. 265, 279+ (2007) 1627 PIECEMEAL AND WHOLESALE APPROACHES TOWARDS MARRIAGE EQUALITY IN NEW JERSEY: IS LEWIS V. HARRIS A DEAD END OR JUST A DETOUR?, 59 Rutgers L. Rev. 291, 349+ (2007) 1628 NEW JERSEY SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS AND THE CONFLICT OF LAWS, 59 Rutgers L. Rev. 351, 375 (2007) HN: 38 (N.E.2d) 1629 TRADITIONALISM, PLURALISM, AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 59 Rutgers L. Rev. 377, 412 (2007) HN: 17 (N.E.2d) 1630 12 Rutgers Race & L. Rev. 333, JUSTICE, ANTI-SEMITISM, AND THE TELOS OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM (2011) HN: 33 (N.E.2d) 1631 THE GOALS OF MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE IN MISSOURI: THE STATE'S INTEREST IN REGULATING MARRIAGE, PRIVATIZING DEPENDENCY, AND ALLOWING SAME-SEX DIVORCE, 32 St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev. 447, 485+ (2013) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1632 THE MISSING INGREDIENT: HOW OFT-OVERLOOKED MODERN CONFLICT OF LAWS PRINCIPLES WILL DICTATE THE REACH OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN AMERICA, 30 St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev. 325, 376 (2011) HN: 2,6 (N.E.2d) 1633 ONE WEDDING AND A REVOLUTION: A FILM BY DEBRA CHASNOFF, 24 St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev. 11, 20+ (2005) HN: 42 (N.E.2d)
1634 THE ROLE OF LITIGATION IN GAY RIGHTS: THE MARRIAGE EXPERIENCE, 24 St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev. 113, 127+ (2005) HN: 41 (N.E.2d) 1635 DEMOCRACY AND DISSENT: CHALLENGING THE SOLOMON AMENDMENT AS A CULTURAL THREAT TO ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND CIVIL RIGHTS, 24 St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev. 149, 167+ (2005) 1636 PARENTHOOD AND THE LIMITS OF ADULT AUTONOMY, 24 St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev. 169, 194+ (2005) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1637 FROM QUEER TO PATERNITY: HOW PRIMARY GAY FATHERS ARE CHANGING FATHERHOOD AND GAY IDENTITY, 24 St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev. 195, 220 (2005) 1638 TAX PROTEST, "A HOMOSEXUAL," AND FRIVOLITY: A DECONSTRUCTIONIST MEDITATION, 24 St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev. 21, 58+ (2005) HN: 41,42 (N.E.2d) 1639 MISS SUSAN'S ETIQUETTE TIPS FOR THE SOCIALLY CONSCIOUS JUDGE: A GUIDE TO HONORABLE CONDUCT TOWARD GAYS AND LESBIANS IN THE COURTROOM, 24 St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev. 221, 242 (2005) 1640 INTRODUCTION, 24 St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev. 5, 10+ (2005) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 1641 THE LAWRENCE READER: STANDHARDT AND LEWIS ON WOMEN IN LOVE, 24 St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev. 59, 88+ (2005) 1642 BOWERS, LAWRENCE AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: A MEETING OF HARD AND VERY HARD CASES, 24 St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev. 89, 111+ (2005) 1643 SEXUAL LIBERTY AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: AN ARGUMENT FROM BISEXUALITY, 49 San Diego L. Rev. 415, 486+ (2012) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1644 MOVING BEYOND ANIMAL RIGHTS: A LEGAL/CONTRACTUALIST CRITIQUE, 46 San Diego L. Rev. 27, 84 (2009) 1645 RECOILING FROM RELIGION, 43 San Diego L. Rev. 619, 659 (2006) 1646 THE CONSERVATIVE'S DILEMMA: TRADITIONAL INSTITUTIONS, SOCIAL CHANGE, AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 42 San Diego L. Rev. 1059, 1103+ (2005) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1647 TRADITIONALISM AND RATIONALISM IN THE COURTS, 42 San Diego L. Rev. 1105, 1110+ (2005) 1648 WHY THE FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT IS NECESSARY, 42 San Diego L. Rev. 895, 924 (2005) 1649 SAME-SEX DIVORCE JURISDICTION: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF CHAMBERS V. ORMISTON AND WHY DIVORCE IS AN INCIDENT OF MARRIAGE THAT SHOULD BE UNIFORMLY RECOGNIZED THROUGHOUT THE STATES, 50 Santa Clara L. Rev. 225, 254+ (2010) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 1650 TAXING FAMILIES FAIRLY, 48 Santa Clara L. Rev. 805, 855 (2008)
1651 EXPANSION OF FAMILY RIGHTS WHILE SEARCHING FOR THE MEANING OF LIFE, INDIVIDUALITY, AND SELF, 48 Santa Clara L. Rev. 959, 997+ (2008) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 1652 SAME-SEX COUPLES: THEIR RIGHTS AS PARENTS, AND THEIR CHILDREN'S RIGHTS AS CHILDREN, 48 Santa Clara L. Rev. 999, 1037+ (2008) HN: 31,42 (N.E.2d) 1653 REFOCUS ON THE FAMILY: EXPLORING THE COMPLICATIONS IN GRANTING THE FAMILY IMMIGRATION BENEFIT TO GAY AND LESBIAN UNITED STATES CITIZENS, 45 Santa Clara L. Rev. 493, 530+ (2005) HN: 31,32,34 (N.E.2d) 1654 THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE AS SODOMY STATUTE, 44 Santa Clara L. Rev. 763, 804 (2004) 1655 MOVING BEYOND THE "IMMUTABILITY DEBATE" IN THE FIGHT FOR EQUALITY AFTER PROPOSITION 8, 12 SCHOLAR 1, 25+ (2009) HN: 31,32,34 (N.E.2d) 1656 RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF OUT-OF-STATE ADOPTION DECREES UNDER THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE: THE CASE OF SUPPLEMENTAL BIRTH CERTIFICATES, 15 Scholar: St. Mary's L. Rev. & Soc. Just. 293, 340+ (2013) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1657 A LOOK AT BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION IN 2054, 3 Seattle J. for Soc. Just. 29, 39 (2004) 1658 A RELIGIOUS ARGUMENT FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 2 Seattle J. for Soc. Just. 495, 502+ (2004) 1659 EXCLUSIONARY EQUALITY AND THE CASE FOR SAME-SEX FAMILIES: A REWORKING OF MARTHA FINEMAN'S RE-VISIONED FAMILY LAW, 2 Seattle J. for Soc. Just. 505, 524 (2004) 1660 NAKED CAME I: JURISDICTION-STRIPPING AND THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF HOUSE BILL 3313, 29 Seattle U. L. Rev. 963, 990+ (2006) 1661 DIRECT TYRANNY: THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT AS A SAFEGUARD AGAINST HARMFUL MAJORITARIANISM IN JACKSON V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND ETHICS, 43 Seton Hall L. Rev. 685, 700+ (2013) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1662 WHEN HARRY MET LAWRENCE: ALLOWING GAYS AND LESBIANS TO ADOPT, 35 Seton Hall L. Rev. 873, 909 (2005) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 1663 RESERVING THE RIGHT: DOES A CONSTITUTIONAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT NECESSARILY TRUMP AN EARLIER AND MORE GENERAL EQUAL PROTECTION OR PRIVACY PROVISION?, 36 Seton Hall L. Rev. 125, 162+ (2005) HN: 17 (N.E.2d) 1664 "ROMEO AND ROMEO": AN EXAMINATION OF LIMON V. KANSAS IN LIGHT OF LAWRENCE V. TEXAS, 35 Seton Hall L. Rev. 359, 401 (2004) 1665 HEALTH CARE REFORM: SEEKING THE CURE FOR TAX AND SOCIAL
JUSTICE ON THE LANDSCAPE OF CHANGING FAMILIAL NORMS, 36 Seton Hall Legis. J. 343, 378+ (2012) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1666 TAKING THE "SUBSTANCE" OUT OF SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS AND RETURNING LAWMAKING POWER TO THE FEDERAL AND STATE LEGISLATURES, 63 S.C. L. Rev. 285, 338+ (2011) HN: 15 (N.E.2d) 1667 AVOIDING "WILD BLUE YONDERS": THE PRUDENTIALISM OF HENRY J. FRIENDLY AND JOHN ROBERTS, 52 S.D. L. Rev. 73, 135+ (2007) 1668 NOT WHETHER BUT HOW: GAY MARRIAGE AND THE REVIVAL OF BURKEAN CONSERVATISM, 50 S. Tex. L. Rev. 1, 13 (2008) 1669 CAN THE GOVERNMENT PROHIBIT GAY MARRIAGE?, 50 S. Tex. L. Rev. 15, 35 (2008) 1670 THREE LIBERAL-BUT MISTAKEN-ARGUMENTS FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 50 S. Tex. L. Rev. 45, 60+ (2008) HN: 31,32,34 (N.E.2d) 1671 SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: UNCONSERVATIVE IN PURPOSE, IN APPLICATION, AND IN RESULT, 50 S. Tex. L. Rev. 85, 92 (2008) HN: 41 (N.E.2d) 1672 YOU SCRATCH MY BACK AND I'LL SCRATCH YOURS: WHY THE FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT SHOULD ALSO REPEAL THE SEVENTEENTH AMENDMENT, 49 S. Tex. L. Rev. 277, 305+ (2007) HN: 15 (N.E.2d) 1673 FOREWORD, 46 S. Tex. L. Rev. 245, 254+ (2004) 1674 A PREDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT'S ANALYSIS OF THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT, AFTER LAWRENCE V. TEXAS, 46 S. Tex. L. Rev. 361, 389+ (2004) HN: 31,36 (N.E.2d) 1675 LAW AS STORY: A CIVIC CONCEPT OF LAW (WITH CONSTITUTIONAL ILLUSTRATIONS), 18 S. Cal. Interdisc. L.J. 603, 649 (2009) 1676 MORAL LIMITS ON MORALS LEGISLATION: LESSONS FOR U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW FROM THE DECLARATION ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, 16 S. Cal. Interdisc. L.J. 1, 48+ (2006) HN: 31,32,34 (N.E.2d) 1677 COURTS AND THE POLITICS OF BACKLASH: MARRIAGE EQUALITY LITIGATION, THEN AND NOW, 82 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1153, 1223+ (2009) HN: 15,31,34 (N.E.2d) 1678 LEARNING FROM HISTORY: THE FEDERAL UNION AND MARRIAGE, 20 S. Cal. Rev. L. & Soc. Just. 67, 87+ (2011) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1679 EQUALITY'S CENTRALITY: PROPOSITION 8 AND THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION, 19 S. Cal. Rev. L. & Soc. Just. 45, 87 (2010) HN: 17 (N.E.2d) 1680 THE GREAT DIVORCE: THE SEPARATION OF EQUALITY AND DEMOCRACY IN CONTEMPORARY MARRIAGE JURISPRUDENCE, 19 S. Cal. Rev. L. & Soc. Just. 89, 146+ (2010) 1681 MONOGAMY, LICENTIOUSNESS, DESUETUDE AND MERE
TOLERANCE: THE MULTIPLE MISINTERPRETATIONS OF LAWRENCE V. TEXAS, 15 S. Cal. Rev. L. & Women's Stud. 95, 144 (2005) 1682 GAY MARRIAGE: EQUALITY MATTERS, 14 S. Cal. Rev. L. & Women's Stud. 3, 6+ (2004) HN: 15,31,36 (N.E.2d) 1683 ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE?, 14 S. Cal. Rev. L. & Women's Stud. 51, 70+ (2004) HN: 15,31 (N.E.2d) 1684 QUEERING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE TO "STRAIGHTEN OUT" CRIMINAL LAW: WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN WHEN QUEER THEORY AND PRACTICE MEETCRIMINAL LAW'S CONVENTIONAL RESPONSES TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, 13 S. Cal. Rev. L. & Women's Stud. 81, 160 (2003) 1685 AFFIRMATIVE ACTION SYMPOSIUM, 28 S. Ill. U. L.J. 519, 551 (2004) 1686 EMBRYO ADOPTIONS: THAWING INACTIVE LEGISLATURES WITH A PROPOSED UNIFORM LAW, 28 S. Ill. U. L.J. 423, 453 (2004) 1687 THE COLOR OF TESTAMENTARY FREEDOM, 62 SMU L. Rev. 1783, 1816 (2009) HN: 17 (N.E.2d) 1688 SPERMS AND ESTATES: AN UNADULTERATED FUNCTIONALLY BASED APPROACH TO PARENT-CHILD PROPERTY SUCCESSION, 62 SMU L. Rev. 367, 429+ (2009) HN: 32 (N.E.2d) 1689 FAMILY LAW: HUSBAND AND WIFE, 57 SMU L. Rev. 991, 1034 (2004) 1690 DUAL RATIONALITY OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: CREATION OF NEW RIGHTS IN THE SHADOW OF INCOMPLETE CONTRACT PARADIGM, 2 S. New Eng. Roundtable Symp. L.J. 59, 112+ (2007) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1691 IN IMPARTIALITY WE TRUST: A COMMENTARY ON GOVERNMENT AID AND INVOLVEMENT WITH RELIGION, 2 S. New Eng. Roundtable Symp. L.J. 113, 173+ (2007) 1692 HOW THE WHEELS COME OFF: THE INEVITABLE CRASH OF IRRECONCILABLE JURISPRUDENCE: LAWS BASED ON ORTHODOX JUDEO-CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY IN A PLURALISTIC SOCIETY, 37 S.U. L. Rev. 127, 183+ (2009) 1693 HISTORY DOESN'T REPEAT ITSELF, BUT IT DOES RHYME-SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: IS THE AFRICAN- AMERICAN COMMUNITY THE OPPRESSOR THIS TIME?, 34 S.U. L. Rev. 169, 200+ (2007) HN: 31,32,42 (N.E.2d) 1694 LEGALIZATION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA: THE UNEQUAL APPLICATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION, 11 Sw. J.L. & Trade Am. 363, 380+ (2005) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 1695 SOLDIERS AND MOTHERS REVISITED, 42 Sw. L. Rev. 833, 849+ (2013) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 1696 IF "I DO," THEN SO SHOULD YOU: AN ANALYSIS OF STATE CONSTITUTIONAL BANS ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 39 Sw. L. Rev. 365, 394+ (2009) HN: 17,31,36 (N.E.2d)
1697 SAME SEX MARRIAGE: AN ESSENTIAL STEP TOWARDS EQUALITY, 34 Sw. U. L. Rev. 579, 596+ (2005) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 1698 DEATH IS CERTAIN, ARE TAXES? ANOTHER ARGUMENT FOR EQUALITY FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES UNDER THE CODE, 34 Sw. U. L. Rev. 635, 655+ (2005) HN: 32 (N.E.2d) 1699 BIRTH OF A NEW AGE: A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF NEW YORK INHERITANCE LAW RESPONDING TO ADVANCES IN REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY, 24 St. John's J. Legal Comment. 113, 158 (2009) 1700 JUDICIAL ACTIVISM ON THE REHNQUIST COURT: AN EMPIRICAL ASSESSMENT, 23 St. John's J. Legal Comment. 35, 110 (2008) 1701 POLITICAL REASON, 22 St. John's J. Legal Comment. 493, 506+ (2007) HN: 38 (N.E.2d) 1702 "MCDUFFY IS DEAD; LONG LIVE MCDUFFY!": FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS WITHOUT REMEDIES IN THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, 21 St. John's J. Legal Comment. 111, 169+ (2006) HN: 27,34 (N.E.2d) 1703 MARRIAGE AND THE RELIGION CLAUSES, 85 St. John's L. Rev. 1451, 1482+ (2011) HN: 2,6,34 (N.E.2d) 1704 SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: A THREAT TO TIERED EQUAL PROTECTION DOCTRINE?, 82 St. John's L. Rev. 1409, 1446+ (2008) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1705 OPEN ATTENDANCE-THE FIRST AMENDMENT IMPLICATIONS OF FIGHTING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOMOSEXUALS IN LAW SCHOOL STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS, 52 St. Louis U. L.J. 1249, 1290+ (2008) 1706 DECRIMINALIZING SEXUAL CONDUCT: THE SUPREME COURT RULING IN LAWRENCE V. TEXAS, 35 St. Mary's L.J. 685, 706+ (2004) HN: 36,42 (N.E.2d) 1707 OPENING ANOTHER EXIT FROM CHILD WELFARE FOR SPECIAL NEEDS CHILDREN - WHY SOME GAY MEN AND LESBIANS SHOULD HAVE THE PRIVILEGE TO ADOPT CHILDREN IN FLORIDA, 18 St. Thomas L. Rev. 269, 324+ (2005) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 1708 ADULT SEXUAL DESIRE AND THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD, 18 St. Thomas L. Rev. 543, 598+ (2005) 1709 ARE SAME-SEX MARRIAGES REALLY A THREAT TO RELIGIOUS LIBERTY?, 8 Stanford Journal of Civil Rights & Civil Liberties 123+ (2012) HN: 2,7,34 (N.E.2d) 1710 BREAKING VOWS: MARRIAGE PROMOTION, THE NEW PATRIARCHY, AND THE RETREAT FROM EGALITARIANISM, 5 Stanford Journal of Civil Rights & Civil Liberties 269+ (2009) 1711 MARRIAGE RIGHTS AND PARENTAL RIGHTS: PARENTS, THE STATE, AND PROPOSITION 8, 5 Stanford Journal of Civil Rights & Civil Liberties 357+ (2009) HN: 34 (N.E.2d)
1712 WHY DO SO MANY PEOPLE OPPOSE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE?, 5 Stanford Journal of Civil Rights & Civil Liberties 409 (2009) 1713 IN DEMOCRACY'S SHADOW: FENCES, RAIDS, AND THE PRODUCTION OF MIGRANT ILLEGALITY, 5 Stanford Journal of Civil Rights & Civil Liberties 23 (2009) 1714 THE ENEMY WITHIN: CONSTRUCTIONS OF U.S. IMMIGRATION LAW AND POLICY AND THE HOMOTERRORIST THREAT, 3 Stanford Journal of Civil Rights & Civil Liberties 345 (2007) 1715 WHO GETS TO INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION? THE CASE OF MAYORS AND MARRIAGE EQUALITY, 3 Stanford Journal of Civil Rights & Civil Liberties 1+ (2007) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 1716 SAME SEX MARRIAGE, FULL FAITH AND CREDIT, AND THE EVASION OF OBLIGATION, 1 Stanford Journal of Civil Rights & Civil Liberties 1 (2005) 1717 INTRODUCTION: SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AS A MOVING STORY, 16 Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev. 1, 9 (2005) 1718 LEGAL & POLITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE BATTLE OVER SAMESEX MARRIAGE, 16 Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev. 11, 22 (2005) 1719 THE TURN TOWARD THE SELF IN THE LAW OF MARRIAGE & FAMILY: SAME-SEX MARRIAGE & ITS PREDECESSORS, 16 Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev. 135, 196+ (2005) HN: 31,32 (N.E.2d) 1720 LAWRENCE V. TEXAS & THE REFINEMENT OF SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS, 16 Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev. 23, 56+ (2005) 1721 MARRIAGE BETWEEN A MAN & A WOMAN: A FIGHT TO SAVE THE TRADITIONAL FAMILY ONE CASE AT A TIME, 16 Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev. 57, 71+ (2005) 1722 GOVERNMENT AFFIXES A LABEL OF INFERIORITY ON SAME-SEX COUPLES WHEN IT IMPOSES CIVIL UNIONS & DENIES ACCESS TO MARRIAGE, 16 Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev. 73, 82+ (2005) 1723 LEGISLATIVE DEFERENCE & THE NOVELTY OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 16 Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev. 83, 96+ (2005) HN: 13,34 (N.E.2d) 1724 MISSING IN ACTION? SEARCHING FOR GENDER TALK IN THE SAMESEX MARRIAGE DEBATE, 16 Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev. 97, 134+ (2005) HN: 31,32,34 (N.E.2d) 1725 PREGLIMONY, 63 Stan. L. Rev. 647, 697+ (2011) 1726 SUBCONSTITUTIONALISM, 62 Stan. L. Rev. 1583, 1628 (2010) 1727 HOW STATE SUPREME COURTS TAKE CONSEQUENCES INTO ACCOUNT: TOWARD A STATE-CENTERED UNDERSTANDING OF STATE CONSTITUTIONALISM, 62 Stan. L. Rev. 1629, 1693+ (2010) 1728 TWO CHEERS FOR STATE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 62 Stan. L. Rev. 1695, 1709 (2010) 1729 DEATH BY A THOUSAND CUTS: THE GUARANTEE CLAUSE
REGULATION OF STATE CONSTITUTIONS, 62 Stan. L. Rev. 1711, 1761 (2010) 1730 WELL, SHOULD THEY? A RESPONSE TO IF PEOPLE WOULD BE OUTRAGED BY THEIR RULINGS, SHOULD JUDGES CARE?, 60 Stan. L. Rev. 213, 240 (2007) 1731 THE LAW OF OTHER STATES, 59 Stan. L. Rev. 131, 179+ (2006) HN: 38 (N.E.2d) 1732 THE REHNQUIST COURT AT TWILIGHT: THE LURES AND PERILS OF SPLIT-THE-DIFFERENCE JURISPRUDENCE, 58 Stan. L. Rev. 1969, 1996+ (2006) 1733 DISSENTING BY DECIDING, 57 Stan. L. Rev. 1745, 1805 (2005) 1734 GENDERED JUSTICE: DO MALE AND FEMALE JUDGES RULE DIFFERENTLY ON QUESTIONS OF GAY RIGHTS?, 57 Stan. L. Rev. 2087, 2131+ (2005) 1735 THE CANON OF FAMILY LAW, 57 Stan. L. Rev. 825, 900+ (2004) HN: 36,42 (N.E.2d) 1736 REDEFINING PARENTHOOD: REMOVING NOSTALGIA FROM THIRDPARTY CHILD CUSTODY AND VISITATION DECISIONS IN FLORIDA, 39 Stetson L. Rev. 317, 350 (2009) 1737 BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION AND THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT, 34 Stetson L. Rev. 413, 421 (2005) 1738 SUBNATIONAL TREASURE: "FEDERALISM, SUBNATIONAL CONSTITUTIONS, AND MINORITY RIGHTS", 28 Suffolk Transnat'l L. Rev. 261, 266+ (2005) 1739 THE DOCTOR WILL SEE YOU FOR THE LAST TIME NOW: PHYSICIANASSISTED SUICIDE IN MASSACHUSETTS, 46 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 243, 261 (2013) 1740 A YAWNING BLACK ABYSS: SECTION 35 AND THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF WOMEN IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, 46 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 1033, 1065+ (2013) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1741 INSURING THE KNOT: THE MASSACHUSETTS APPROACH TO POSTNUPTIAL AGREEMENTS, 45 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 397, 426+ (2012) HN: 2,6,34 (N.E.2d) 1742 DO FRIENDS NEED THE LAW? EXAMINING WHY FRIENDSHIP MATTERS AND WHAT GOVERNMENTS CAN DO FOR THIS IMPORTANT, THOUGH OVERLOOKED, RELATIONSHIP, 45 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 523, 548+ (2012) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1743 THE MASSACHUSETTS CONSTITUTION-THE LAST THIRTY YEARS, 44 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 331, 331+ (2011) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1744 "YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY," BUT NOT RIGHT NOW: COMBATING MIRANDA'S FAILURE BY ADVANCING THE POINT OF
ATTACHMENT UNDER ARTICLE XII OF THE MASSACHUSETTS DECLARATION OF RIGHTS, 44 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 359, 414 (2011) HN: 24 (N.E.2d) 1745 CITATION TO FOREIGN DECISIONS IN CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION, 43 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 135, 161+ (2009) 1746 FIVE IS A CROWD: A CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS OF THE BOSTON ZONING AMENDMENT PROHIBITING MORE THAN FOUR COLLEGE STUDENTS FROM LIVING TOGETHER, 43 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 217, 241+ (2009) 1747 JUDICIAL REVIEW, JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, QUEER RIGHTS, AND LITERATURE: A CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE HONORABLE MICHAEL KIRBY AND PROFESSOR RUTHANN ROBSON (FN2), 43 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 89, 115 (2009) HN: 37 (N.E.2d) 1748 THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND THE MIND/BODY PROBLEM, 41 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 521, 559 (2008) 1749 ENDING MARRIAGE DISCRIMINATION: A WORK IN PROGRESS, 40 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 813, 859+ (2007) HN: 31,32,34 (N.E.2d) 1750 TIME FOR A NEW PRIVILEGE: ALLOWING UNMARRIED COHABITATING COUPLES TO CLAIM THE SPOUSAL TESTIMONY PRIVILEGE, 40 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 887, 907+ (2007) HN: 17,36,42 (N.E.2d) 1751 RELIGION, POLYGAMY, AND NON-TRADITIONAL FAMILIES: DISPARATE VIEWS ON THE EVOLUTION OF MARRIAGE IN HISTORY AND IN THE DEBATE OVER SAME-SEX UNIONS, 41 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 19, 48+ (2007) HN: 15,31,32 (N.E.2d) 1752 IT'S MORE THAN A ONE-NIGHT STAND: WHY A PROMISE TO PARENT SHOULD OBLIGATE A FORMER LESBIAN PARTNER TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT IN THE ABSENCE OF A STATUTORY REQUIREMENT, 39 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 465, 487+ (2006) 1753 WHEN GOOD INTENTIONS GO BAD: THE MCAS GRADUATION REQUIREMENT AND SPECIAL EDUCATION CHILDREN, 40 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 123, 153+ (2006) HN: 27,29 (N.E.2d) 1754 THE TYRANNY OF LABELS, 38 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 749, 760+ (2005) HN: 41 (N.E.2d) 1755 CONTRACT LAW-FOR BETTER OR FOR WORSE: THE MISSING ELEMENT IN SAME-SEX "MARRIAGE" CONTRACTS-GOODRIDGE V. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 798 N.E.2D 941 (MASS. 2003), 37 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 1227, 1234+ (2004) HN: 31,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1756 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS AND THE NOTSO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO SEXUAL ORIENTATION-LAWRENCE V. TEXAS, 123 S. CT. 2472 (2003), 37 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 1249, 1254+ (2004) 1757 OF SAME SEX RELATIONSHIPS AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: THE COVERT LIBERTARIANISM OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT,
12 Sup. Ct. Econ. Rev. 75, 113 (2004) 1758 THE GAY AND THE ANGRY: THE SUPREME COURT AND THE BATTLES SURROUNDING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 2010 Sup. Ct. Rev. 159, 212+ (2010) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 1759 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, 60 Syracuse L. Rev. 661, 688 (2010) 1760 FAMILY LAW, 57 Syracuse L. Rev. 1219, 1246+ (2007) 1761 FAMILY LAW, 55 Syracuse L. Rev. 1053, 1106+ (2005) HN: 31,36,42 (N.E.2d) Secondary Sources (Australia) 1762 Constitutional Issues Regarding Same-Sex Marriage: A Comparative Survey North America and Australasia, 30 Sydney L. Rev. 27, 33+ (2008) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) Secondary Sources (U.S.A.) 1763 DECONSTRUCTING THE DUTY TO THE TAX SYSTEM: UNFETTERING ZEALOUS ADVOCACY ON BEHALF OF LESBIAN AND GAY TAXPAYERS, 61 Tax Law. 407, 444 (2008) 1764 THE PATIENT WANTED THE DOCTOR TO TREAT HER IN THE CLOSET, BUT THE JANITOR WOULDN'T OPEN THE DOOR: HEALTHCARE PROVIDER RIGHTS OF REFUSAL VERSUS LGB RIGHTS TO REPRODUCTIVE AND ELDER HEALTHCARE, 28 Temp. J. Sci. Tech. & Envtl. L. 65, 92+ (2009) 1765 TORMENTED: ANTIGAY BULLYING IN SCHOOLS, 84 Temp. L. Rev. 385, 442+ (2012) 1766 LEGAL ETHICS, JURISPRUDENCE, AND THE CULTURAL STUDY OF THE LAWYER, 81 Temp. L. Rev. 737, 785 (2008) 1767 ONE SMALL STEP FOR FEDERAL TAXATION, ONE GIANT LEAP FOR SAME-SEX EQUALITY: REVISING S 2702 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE TO APPLY EQUALLY TO ALL MARRIAGES, 81 Temp. L. Rev. 545, 570 (2008) 1768 THE CIVIC UNDERPINNINGS OF LEGAL CHANGE: GAY RIGHTS, ABORTION, AND GUN CONTROL, 21 Temp. Pol. & Civ. Rts. L. Rev. 117, 162 (2011) HN: 2,6 (N.E.2d) 1769 RECENT CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS IN TAXATION: TOWARD A LEGISLATIVE SOLUTION TO CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS OF SAMESEX COUPLES AND MINISTERS OF THE GOSPEL?, 19 Temp. Pol. & Civ. Rts. L. Rev. 223, 264+ (2009) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 1770 WHERE THE RUBBER LEFT THE ROAD: THE USE AND MISUSE OF HISTORY IN THE QUEST FOR THE FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT NONDISCRIMINATION ACT, 18 Temp. Pol. & Civ. Rts. L. Rev. 397, 463 (2009) 1771 SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, IDENTITY PROCESSES, AND THE
KULTURKAMPF: WHY FEDERALISM IS NOT THE MAIN EVENT, 17 Temp. Pol. & Civ. Rts. L. Rev. 387, 420+ (2008) 1772 SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND FEDERALISM, 17 Temp. Pol. & Civ. Rts. L. Rev. 421, 442+ (2008) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 1773 FINDING A CEILING IN A CIRCULAR ROOM: LOCKE V. DAVEY, FEDERALISM, AND RELIGIOUS NEUTRALITY, 16 Temp. Pol. & Civ. Rts. L. Rev. 103, 143 (2006) 1774 ON SHIFTING SAND: THE PERILS OF GROUNDING THE CASE FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN THE CONTEXT OF ANTIMISCEGENATION, 14 Temp. Pol. & Civ. Rts. L. Rev. 285, 305+ (2004) HN: 31,32,42 (N.E.2d) 1775 DOMA'S BANKRUPTCY, 79 Tenn. L. Rev. 1, 28+ (2011) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1776 THE GAME IS AFOOT: CONSTITUTIONALIZING THE RIGHT TO HUNT AND FISH IN THE TENNESSEE CONSTITUTION, 77 Tenn. L. Rev. 57, 109 (2009) 1777 (2.3) MASSACHUSETTS "GAY MARRIAGE' CASE PUSHES DOMESTICPARTNER ISSUES TO HR FRONT BURNER (2004) 1778 CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE: TRANSSEXUAL MARRIAGE AND THE DISCONNECT BETWEEN SEX AND LEGAL SEX, 21 Tex. J. Women & L. 153, 186 (2012) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1779 A CASE AGAINST THE FEDERAL PROTECTION OF MARRIAGE AMENDMENT, 16 Tex. J. Women & L. 1, 44+ (2006) HN: 36,42 (N.E.2d) 1780 A HISTORY OF GENDER VARIANCE IN PRE-20TH CENTURY ANGLOAMERICAN LAW, 14 Tex. J. Women & L. 77, 119 (2004) 1781 SELF-DETERMINATION IN A GENDER FUNDAMENTALIST STATE: TOWARD LEGAL LIBERATION OF TRANSGENDER IDENTITIES, 12 Tex. J. on C.L. & C.R. 101, 131+ (2006) 1782 GOING TO THE CHAPEL AND WE'RE GOING TO GET MARRIED; BUT WILL THE STATE RECOGNIZE THE MARRIAGE? (FN2) THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATE MARRIAGE LAWS AFTER LAWRENCE V. TEXAS (FN3), 10 Tex. J. on C.L. & C.R. 189, 221+ (2005) HN: 15,31,36 (N.E.2d) 1783 MAKING SENSE OF THE MARRIAGE DEBATE FROM THE CLOSET TO THE ALTAR: COURTS, BACKLASH, AND THE STRUGGLE FOR SAMESEX MARRIAGE. BY MICHAEL J. KLARMAN. NEW YORK, NEW YORK: OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, 2013. 276 PAGES. $27.95, 91 Tex. L. Rev. 1185, 1192+ (2013) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1784 FIDELITY TO LAW AND THE MORAL PLURALISM PREMISE Lawyers and Fidelity to Law. By W. Bradley Wendel. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2010. 286 pages. $35.00., 90 Tex. L. Rev. 657, 672 (2012) HN: 2,6,42 (N.E.2d) 1785 POLYPHONIC FEDERALISM. BY ROBERT A. SCHAPIRO. CHICAGO, THE
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS. 2009. PP. 237, $45.00., 89 Tex. L. Rev. 1365, 1394 (2011) 1786 THE RELATIVE IRRELEVANCE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE, 89 Tex. L. Rev. 583, 651+ (2011) HN: 31 (N.E.2d) 1787 JUSTICE: WHAT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO? BY MICHAEL J. SANDEL. NEW YORK: FARRAR, STRAUS, AND GIROUX, 2009. 308 PAGES. $15.00., 89 Tex. L. Rev. 653, 669 (2011) 1788 COMMERCE AND REGULATION IN THE ASSISTED REPRODUCTION INDUSTRY The Baby Business: How Money, Science, and Politics Drive the Commerce of Conception. by Debora L. Spar. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2006. Pp., 85 Tex. L. Rev. 665, 702 (2007) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1789 WHERE EVERYTHING OLD IS NEW AGAIN-ENDURING EPISODIC DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS, 84 Tex. L. Rev. 1587, 1632+ (2006) HN: 17 (N.E.2d) 1790 CONSTITUTIONALISM, JUDICIAL REVIEW, AND PROGRESSIVE CHANGE Reviewing Towards Juristocracy: The Origins and Consequences of the New Constitutionalism. By Ran Hirschl. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004. Pp. 286, 84 Tex. L. Rev. 433, 470+ (2005) HN: 21 (N.E.2d) 1791 DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS-NOT FOR GAY PEOPLE?: EU EASTERN ENLARGEMENT AND ITS IMPACT ON THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS OF SEXUAL MINORITIES, 13 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 459, 495 (2007) 1792 SAME-SEX MARRIAGE & CIVIL UNIONS 'Til State Borders Do Us Part?, 36-SPG Brief 54, 54+ (2007) HN: 31,36,42 (N.E.2d) 1793 THE MARRIAGE AMENDMENTS, EQUALITY AND PARTNER BENEFITS: A LETTER TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF MOSCOW, IDAHO, 2 the crit: Critical Stud. J. 38, 62 (2009) 1794 COMPELLED DISCLOSURE IN THE WAKE OF CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 8: EXPLORING THE APPLICABILITY OF BUCKLEY'S MINOR PARTY EXEMPTION TO THE MAJORITY, 25 J.L. & Pol. 375, 399 (2009) HN: 38 (N.E.2d) 1795 THE WOLVES AND THE SHEEP OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: A REVIEW ESSAY ON KERMIT ROOSEVELT'S THE MYTH OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, 23 J.L. & Pol. 1, 40 (2007) 1796 CITIES AS CONSTITUTIONAL ACTORS: THE CASE OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 21 J.L. & Pol. 147, 185+ (2005) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1797 NOTE: THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY, AND FREE SPEECH IN JUDICIAL ELECTIONS AFTER REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINNESOTA V. WHITE, 21 J.L. & Pol. 103, 145+ (2005) HN: 37 (N.E.2d) 1798 AN INTERVIEW WITH CHIEF JUSTICE MARGARET H. MARSHALL, 49 NO. 2 Judges' J. 4, 4+ (2010)
1799 THE POLICY CONSIDERATIONS SURROUNDING THE UNITED STATES' IMMIGRATION LAW AS APPLIED TO BI-NATIONAL SAME-SEX COUPLES: MAKING THE CASE FOR THE UNITING AMERICAN FAMILIES ACT, 18-SPG Kan. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 301, 319 (2009) 1800 AN EXAMINATION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND THE RAMIFICATIONS OF LAWRENCE v. TEXAS, 14-SPG Kan. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 687, 694+ (2005) HN: 31,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1801 THE SOCIAL SECURITY CASTE SYSTEM AND THE FAMILY BENEFIT: WHOSE FAMILY IS IT REALLY BENEFITING?, 24 Quinnipiac Prob. L.J. 137, 160+ (2011) HN: 32,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1802 THE HIGH PRICE FOR LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD: THE SOCIOECONOMIC DIVIDE IN ESTATE PLANNING FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES, 25 Quinnipiac Prob. L.J. 32, 66+ (2011) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1803 ADULT ADOPTION: THE VARYING MOTIVES, POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES, AND ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS, 22 Quinnipiac Prob. L.J. 300, 319 (2009) 1804 A LAPSE IN JUDGMENT: RUOTOLO V. TIETJEN AND INTERPRETATION OF CONNECTICUT'S ANTI-LAPSE STATUTE, 20 Quinnipiac Prob. L.J. 204, 222 (2007) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1805 DOES TENNESSEE'S CONSTITUTION REQUIRE PERMITTING SAMEGENDER MARRIAGES?, 36 U. Mem. L. Rev. 413, 416+ (2006) HN: 31,32,34 (N.E.2d) 1806 THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT (DOMA) IS BAD INCOME TAX POLICY, 35 U. Mem. L. Rev. 399, 445 (2005) 1807 THE FREILICH REPORT 2003-04: THE SUPREME COURT IN AN AGE OF SECRECY AND FEAR, 36 Urb. Law. 583, 670 (2004) 1808 DOES THE EQUAL PROTECTION ANALYSIS IN LAWRENCE MAKE BANS ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE UNCONSTITUTIONAL?, 26 T. Jefferson L. Rev. 447, 467+ (2004) HN: 31,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1809 REVEALING THE INADEQUACY OF AB17: HOW DICTATING MORALITY UPON FAITH-BASED ORGANIZATIONS WILL WREAK HAVOC ON CALIFORNIA'S ECONOMY, 26 T. Jefferson L. Rev. 125, 156+ (2003) HN: 15,36,42 (N.E.2d) 1810 THE CASE FOR A FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS, RELIGION & SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: WHERE ARE WE GOING?, 30 T. Marshall L. Rev. 145, 152+ (2004) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 1811 RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS, 40 Tort Trial & Ins. Prac. L.J. 369, 396+ (2005) HN: 31,42 (N.E.2d) 1812 HOMOSEXUALS, EQUAL PROTECTION, AND THE GUARANTEE OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS IN THE NEW DECADE: AN OPTIMIST'S QUASISUSPECT VIEW OF RECENT EVENTS AND THEIR IMPACT ON
HEIGHTENED SCRUTINY FOR SEXUAL ORIENTATION-BASED DISCRIMINAT, 28 Touro L. Rev. 285, 322+ (2012) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1813 DEFAULTS AND CHOICES IN THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT: HOW TO INCREASE AUTONOMY, ENCOURAGE DISCUSSION, AND CIRCUMVENT CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS, 24 Touro L. Rev. 31, 72+ (2008) 1814 COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK, 23 Touro L. Rev. 515, 527 (2007) 1815 LAWRENCE v. TEXAS: THE DECISION AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE, 20 Touro L. Rev. 221, 249 (2004) 1816 DO MOM AND MOM AND BABY MAKE A FAMILY? The Law Governing the Rights and Responsibilities of Same-Sex Parents Is Anything But Settled, Offering Litigators an Opportunity for Creative and Challenging Advocacy, 40-DEC Trial 36, 40+ (2004) 1817 CALIFORNIA CASE BRINGS INTERNET INTO GAY ADOPTION DEBATE, 40-MAR Trial 88, 93 (2004) 1818 IN DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE: PRESERVING MARRIAGE IN A POSTMODERN CULTURE, 17 Trinity L. Rev. 125, 135+ (2011) HN: 2,7,34 (N.E.2d) 1819 HALPERN V. TORONTO (CITY): SAME-SEX MARRIAGES: WHO SHOULD MAKE THE DECISION IN A "FREE AND DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY"?, 12 Tul. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 525, 543+ (2004) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 1820 IT'S (NOT) A BLACK THING: THE BLACK/GAY SPLIT OVER SAME-SEX MARRIAGE-A CRITICAL (RACE) PERSPECTIVE, 22 Tul. J. L. & Sexuality 1, 53+ (2013) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1821 TO SOFTEN THEIR OBDURATE HEARTS: THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION AND MARRIAGE EQUALITY, 21 Tul. J. L. & Sexuality 49, 124 (2012) HN: 2,6,34 (N.E.2d) 1822 AVOIDING MARRIAGE TUNNEL VISION, 88 Tul. L. Rev. 257, 266+ (2013) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1823 FEDERALISM AND FREEDOM: A CRITICAL REVIEW OF ENHANCING GOVERNMENT: FEDERALISM FOR THE 21ST CENTURY. BY ERWIN CHEMERINSKY. STANFORD LAW BOOKS 2008. 299 PP., 83 Tul. L. Rev. 585, 600 (2008) 1824 RETHINKING RULES OF CONFLICT OF LAWS IN MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE IN THE UNITED STATES: WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM EUROPE?, 82 Tul. L. Rev. 1999, 2020+ (2008) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1825 STRAIGHTFORWARD: HOW TO MOBILIZE HETEROSEXUAL SUPPORT FOR GAY RIGHTS. BY IAN AYRES & JENNIFER GERARDA BROWN. PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS 2005. 304 PP., 80 Tul. L. Rev. 1001, 1008 (2006) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 1826 INHERITANCE RIGHTS FOR DOMESTIC PARTNERS, 79 Tul. L. Rev. 55, 58+ (2004) HN: 31,36 (N.E.2d)
1827 TAKING DISSENTING BY DECIDING ALL THE WAY DOWN, 48 Tulsa L. Rev. 523, 534+ (2013) 1828 TRANSNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE U.S. TRANSNATIONAL LAW CONTROVERSY, 47 Tulsa L. Rev. 379, 404 (2011) 1829 GAY MEN AND SEX EQUALITY, 46 Tulsa L. Rev. 123, 150+ (2010) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 1830 THE ODYSSEY OF CASS SUNSTEIN, 43 Tulsa L. Rev. 843, 856 (2008) 1831 SYMPOSIUM FOREWORD: COPING WITH THE AFTERMATH OF VICTORY, 40 Tulsa L. Rev. 371, 379+ (2005) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 1832 SAME-SEX UNIONS: THE NEW CIVIL RIGHTS STRUGGLE OR AN ASSAULT ON TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE?, 40 Tulsa L. Rev. 381, 420+ (2005) HN: 15,31,36 (N.E.2d) 1833 THE GAY MARRIAGE BACKLASH AND ITS SPILLOVER EFFECTS: LESSONS FROM A (SLIGHTLY) "BLUE STATE", 40 Tulsa L. Rev. 443, 465+ (2005) 1834 JUDICIAL IMPEDIMENTS TO LEGISLATING EQUALITY FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES IN THE EUROPEAN UNION, 40 Tulsa L. Rev. 527, 560+ (2005) 1835 LAWRENCE'S REPUBLIC, 39 Tulsa L. Rev. 563, 582 (2004) 1836 SANCTIONING SODOMY: THE SUPREME COURT LIBERATES GAY SEX AND LIMITS STATE POWER TO VINDICATE THE MORAL SENTIMENTS OF THE PEOPLE, 39 Tulsa L. Rev. 95, 153+ (2003) 1837 AT THE INTERSECTION OF NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 9 UCLA J. Int'l L. & Foreign Aff. 163, 226+ (2004) 1838 REFLECTIONS ON SEXUAL LIBERTY AND EQUALITY: "THROUGH SENECA FALLS AND SELMA AND STONEWALL", 60 UCLA L. Rev. Discourse 172, 182 (2013) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 1839 FRAMING (IN)EQUALITY FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES, 60 UCLA L. Rev. Discourse 184, 184+ (2013) HN: 2,36 (N.E.2d) 1840 SOMETHING OLD, SOMETHING NEW: CIVIC VIRTUE AND THE CASE FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 17 UCLA Women's L.J. 53, 120+ (2008) HN: 17 (N.E.2d) 1841 THE UNCERTAIN FUTURE OF MARRIAGE AND THE ALTERNATIVES, 16 UCLA Women's L.J. 97, 97+ (2007) HN: 15 (N.E.2d) 1842 FROM RIGHT TO WRONG: A CRITIQUE OF THE 2000 UNIFORM PARENTAGE ACT, 16 UCLA Women's L.J. 163, 227+ (2007) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 1843 JUST THE FACTS: THE PERILS OF EXPERT TESTIMONY AND FINDINGS OF FACT IN GAY RIGHTS LITIGATION, 7 Unbound: Harv. J. Legal Left 1, 54+ (2011) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 1844 BEHIND THE LAW OF MARRIAGE (I): FROM STATUS/CONTRACT TO THE MARRIAGE SYSTEM, 6 Unbound: Harv. J. Legal Left 1, 6+ (2010) HN: 31,32 (N.E.2d)
1845 HOMO SACER, HOMOSEXUAL: SOME THOUGHTS ON WAGING TAX GUERRILLA WARFARE, 2 Unbound: Harv. J. Legal Left 27, 39+ (2006) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 1846 UNMARRIED COHABITATING COUPLES: A PROPOSAL FOR INHERITANCE RIGHTS UNDER MISSOURI LAW, 76 UMKC L. Rev. 1131, 1156+ (2008) HN: 34,36,42 (N.E.2d) 1847 JUDGING FAMILIES, 77 UMKC L. Rev. 267, 305+ (2008) 1848 RED VERSUS BLUE (AND PURPLE) STATES AND THE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE DEBATE: FROM VALUES POLARIZATION TO COMMON GROUND?, 77 UMKC L. Rev. 415, 455+ (2008) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 1849 ONE STATE, TWO STATE; RED STATE, BLUE STATE: AN ANALYSIS OF LGBT EQUAL RIGHTS, 77 UMKC L. Rev. 513, 533 (2008) 1850 FOOTNOTES: A STORY OF SEDUCTION, 75 UMKC L. Rev. 1181, 1186+ (2007) HN: 41 (N.E.2d) 1851 QUEERING THE OFFICE: CAN SEXUAL ORIENTATION EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION LAWS TRANSFORM WORK PLACE NORMS FOR LGBT EMPLOYEES?, 73 UMKC L. Rev. 643, 680+ (2005) 1852 FEDERALISM'S BATTLE WITH HISTORY: THE INACCURATE ASSOCIATIONS WITH UNPOPULAR POLITICS, 74 UMKC L. Rev. 365, 381 (2005) 1853 FAMILY LAW'S CHALLENGE TO RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, 35 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 3, 88+ (2012) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1854 MARRIAGE AND INEVITABILITY: A LESSON FROM MARYLAND, 41 U. Balt. L.F. 99, 119 (2011) 1855 ADDITIONAL BARRIERS TO BREAKING THE SILENCE: ISSUES TO CONSIDER WHEN REPRESENTING A VICTIM OF SAME-SEX DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, 41 U. Balt. L.F. 150, 171 (2011) HN: 2,34 (N.E.2d) 1856 SAME SEX MARRIAGE: IS MARYLAND READY?, 35 U. Balt. L.F. 128, 135+ (2005) HN: 17 (N.E.2d) 1857 THE CASE OF TWO BIOLOGICAL INTENDED MOTHERS: ILLUSTRATING THE NEED TO STATUTORILY DEFINE MATERNITY IN MARYLAND, 42 U. Balt. L. Rev. 365, 390 (2013) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 1858 CIVIL UNIONS UNDER THE MARYLAND ERA: HOW THE ILLUSION OF EQUALITY IS AN EQUAL RIGHTS AVOIDANCE, 38 U. Balt. L. Rev. 305, 330+ (2009) HN: 31,32,34 (N.E.2d) 1859 SOMETHING OLD, SOMETHING NEW, SOMETHING BORROWED, SOMETHING LONG OVERDUE: THE EVOLUTION OF A "SEXUAL ORIENTATION-BLIND" LEGAL SYSTEM IN MARYLAND AND THE RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 35 U. Balt. L. Rev. 73, 103+ (2005) 1860 CHECK YOUR PRIVACY RIGHTS AT THE FRONT GATE: CONSENSUAL SODOMY REGULATION IN TODAY'S MILITARY FOLLOWING UNITED
STATES V. MARCUM, 35 U. Balt. L. Rev. 239, 269+ (2005) 1861 CONFOUNDING IDENTITIES: THE PARADOX OF LGBT CHILDREN UNDER ASYLUM LAW, 45 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 373, 443 (2011) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1862 LIFE TO DEATH: OUR CONSTITUTION AND HOW IT GROWS, 44 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 391, 411 (2010) 1863 THE SO-CALLED RIGHT TO PRIVACY, 43 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 715, 747 (2010) 1864 AMERICA'S STATUTORY "CONSTITUTION", 41 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 1, 44 (2007) 1865 BEYOND INTERSTATE RECOGNITION IN THE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE DEBATE, 40 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 313, 383+ (2006) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 1866 DISCOURAGING RACIAL PREFERENCES IN ADOPTIONS, 39 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 1415, 1480 (2006) 1867 RESCUING CHILDREN FROM THE MARRIAGE MOVEMENT: THE CASE AGAINST MARITAL STATUS DISCRIMINATION IN ADOPTION AND ASSISTED REPRODUCTION, 39 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 305, 370 (2006) 1868 THE SEX DISCOUNT, 57 UCLA L. Rev. 1149, 1197+ (2010) HN: 31,32 (N.E.2d) 1869 WHAT FEMINISTS HAVE TO LOSE IN SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LITIGATION, 57 UCLA L. Rev. 1199, 1233 (2010) 1870 LAWYERING FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY, 57 UCLA L. Rev. 1235, 1331+ (2010) 1871 SEXUAL AND GENDER VARIATION IN AMERICAN PUBLIC LAW: FROM MALIGNANT TO BENIGN TO PRODUCTIVE, 57 UCLA L. Rev. 1333, 1373 (2010) 1872 STICKY INTUITIONS AND THE FUTURE OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION, 57 UCLA L. Rev. 1375, 1414 (2010) 1873 FROM PRIVACY TO LIBERTY: THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AFTER LAWRENCE, 57 UCLA L. Rev. 1, 69 (2009) 1874 "WHICH IS TO BE MASTER," THE JUDICIARY OR THE LEGISLATURE? WHEN STATUTORY DIRECTIVES VIOLATE SEPARATION OF POWERS, 56 UCLA L. Rev. 837, 898 (2009) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 1875 THE PATH TO RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: RECONCILING THE INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN MARRIAGE AND ADOPTION CASES, 55 UCLA L. Rev. 247, 291+ (2007) HN: 15,31,34 (N.E.2d) 1876 REACHING BACKWARD WHILE LOOKING FORWARD: THE RETROACTIVE EFFECT OF CALIFORNIA'S DOMESTIC PARTNER RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES ACT, 54 UCLA L. Rev. 185, 234 (2006) 1877 WHAT INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE CAN TELL U.S. COURTS ABOUT
SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 53 UCLA L. Rev. 1073, 1105+ (2006) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1878 TRANSGENDER IMMIGRATION: LEGAL SAME-SEX MARRIAGES AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT, 53 UCLA L. Rev. 523, 559+ (2005) 1879 ROPER V. SIMMONS AND OUR CONSTITUTION IN INTERNATIONAL EQUIPOISE, 53 UCLA L. Rev. 1, 27 (2005) 1880 LEGAL RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX CONJUGAL RELATIONSHIPS: THE 2003 CALIFORNIA DOMESTIC PARTNER RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES ACT IN COMPARATIVE CIVIL RIGHTS AND FAMILY LAW PERSPECTIVE, 51 UCLA L. Rev. 1555, 1617+ (2004) HN: 15 (N.E.2d) 1881 TRADITION AS JUSTIFICATION: THE CASE OF OPPOSITE-SEX MARRIAGE, 78 U. Chi. L. Rev. 281, 343+ (2011) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1882 THE PRICE OF VICTORY: POLITICAL TRIUMPHS AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION IN THE GAY RIGHTS MOVEMENT, 77 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1437, 1471+ (2010) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1883 SEXUAL ORIENTATION: TESTING THE UNIVERSALITY OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, 71 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1689, 1720 (2004) 1884 INTERSTATE RECOGNITION OF PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIPS: THE LIMITS OF THE STATE INTERESTS PARADIGM AND THE ROLE OF DUE PROCESS, 2011 U. Chi. Legal F. 233, 277 (2011) HN: 12,34 (N.E.2d) 1885 PROGRESS AND PROGRESSION IN FAMILY LAW, 2004 U. Chi. Legal F. 1, 25+ (2004) HN: 31,42 (N.E.2d) 1886 MARRIAGE, COHABITATION AND COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR DEPENDENCY, 2004 U. Chi. Legal F. 225, 264+ (2004) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 1887 THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ORDERING OF MARRIAGE, 2004 U. Chi. Legal F. 295, 318+ (2004) 1888 ADOPTION IN THE AGE OF REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY, 2004 U. Chi. Legal F. 393, 451+ (2004) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1889 POLYAMORY AS A SEXUAL ORIENTATION, 79 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1461, 1515+ (2011) HN: 14 (N.E.2d) 1890 RECONSTRUCTING FAULT: THE CASE FOR SPOUSAL TORTS, 79 U. Cin. L. Rev. 207, 265 (2010) 1891 THE NEW PARITY DEBATE: CONGRESS AND RIGHTS OF BELONGING, 73 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1347, 1413 (2005) 1892 THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION IN THE NEW CENTURY, 78 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1265, 1335 (2007) 1893 TRIBUTE: PROFESSOR HOMER H. CLARK, JR., 78 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1, 28 (2007) 1894 NAVIGATING DANGEROUS CONSTITUTIONAL STRAITS: A
PROLEGOMENON ON THE FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT AND THE DISENFRANCHISEMENT OF SEXUAL MINORITIES, 76 U. Colo. L. Rev. 599, 652+ (2005) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1895 FUNCTIONAL FAMILIES AND DYSFUNCTIONAL LAWS: COMMITTED PARTNERS AND INTESTATE SUCCESSION, 75 U. Colo. L. Rev. 211, 252 (2004) 1896 SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND PUBLIC SCHOOL CURRICULA: PRESERVING PARENTAL RIGHTS TO DIRECT THE EDUCATION OF THEIR CHILDREN, 32 U. Dayton L. Rev. 361, 384+ (2007) 1897 CONSTITUTIONAL AVOIDANCE AND THE ROBERTS COURT, 32 U. Dayton L. Rev. 339, 347 (2007) 1898 THE FUTURE OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AFTER LAWRENCE v. TEXAS AND THE ELECTION OF 2004, 30 U. Dayton L. Rev. 313, 338+ (2005) HN: 31 (N.E.2d) 1899 MIMICKING MARRIAGE: AS THE EVOLUTION OF THE LEGAL RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE PROGRESSES, CIVIL UNIONS CURRENTLY REPRESENT THE BEST ALTERNATIVE TO MARRIAGE, 30 U. Dayton L. Rev. 119, 147+ (2004) HN: 15,31,42 (N.E.2d) 1900 SEX, ATHEISM, AND THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION, 88 U. Det. Mercy L. Rev. 407, 432 (2011) HN: 6 (N.E.2d) 1901 CONNECTICUT'S CLASS DIVIDE: SEXUAL ORIENTATION AS A QUASISUSPECT CLASS, 87 U. Det. Mercy L. Rev. 227, 246 (2010) 1902 RECHARACTERIZING SEPARATE PROPERTY AT DIVORCE, 84 U. Det. Mercy L. Rev. 307, 333 (2007) 1903 THE REJECTION OF DIVINE LAW IN AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE: THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, TRIVIA, AND THE STARS AND STRIPES, 83 U. Det. Mercy L. Rev. 641, 677 (2006) 1904 DEFINING CONSTITUTIONAL DISCRIMINATION: AN ANALYSIS OF MICHIGAN'S CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO DEFINE MARRIAGE, 83 U. Det. Mercy L. Rev. 91, 114+ (2006) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1905 SAME SEX MARRIAGE: DOES THE CONSTITUTION OR STATE CONSTITUTION SUPPORT SAME-SEX MARRIAGES?, 14 U. D.C. L. Rev. 133, 158+ (2011) 1906 PERRY V. SCHWARZENEGGER: A JUDICIAL ATTACK ON TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE, 22 U. Fla. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 145, 181+ (2011) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 1907 REFLECTIONS ON LOVING AND CHILDREN'S RIGHTS, 20 U. Fla. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 11, 32+ (2009) 1908 THE IMPACT OF MEDICAID ESTATE RECOVERY ON NONTRADITIONAL FAMILIES, 15 U. Fla. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 525, 557 (2004) 1909 CIVIL UNION STATUTES: A SHORTCUT TO LEGAL EQUALITY FOR SAME-SEX PARTNERS IN A LANDSCAPE LITTERED WITH DEFENSE OF
MARRIAGE ACTS, 15 U. Fla. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 229, 249+ (2004) HN: 34,36,38 (N.E.2d) 1910 FLORIDA'S GAY ADOPTION BAN: WHAT DO FLORIDIANS THINK?, 15 U. Fla. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 261, 283+ (2004) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1911 BAEHR V. LEWIN AND THE LONG ROAD TO MARRIAGE EQUALITY, 33 U. Haw. L. Rev. 705, 727+ (2011) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1912 THE STATE MARRIAGE CASES: IMPLICATIONS FOR HAWAI'I'S MARRIAGE EQUALITY DEBATE IN THE POST-LAWRENCE AND ROMER ERA, 31 U. Haw. L. Rev. 653, 680+ (2009) HN: 31,32,34 (N.E.2d) 1913 TAX JUSTICE AND SAME-SEX DOMESTIC PARTNER HEALTH BENEFITS: AN ANALYSIS OF THE TAX EQUITY FOR HEALTH PLAN BENEFICIARIES ACT, 32 U. Haw. L. Rev. 73, 123+ (2009) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 1914 JUDICIAL REVIEW AND SEXUAL FREEDOM, 30 U. Haw. L. Rev. 1, 47+ (2007) HN: 31 (N.E.2d) 1915 FREE EXERCISE AND HYBRID RIGHTS: AN ALTERNATIVE PERSPECTIVE ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE BANS, 29 U. Haw. L. Rev. 23, 57+ (2006) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 1916 PRUDENT USE OF JUDICIAL MINIMALISM: WHY MINIMALISM MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE IN THE CONTEXT OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 27 U. Haw. L. Rev. 501, 523+ (2005) HN: 36,42 (N.E.2d) 1917 THE RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS: COMPARATIVE INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS, CONTESTED SOCIAL GOALS, AND STRATEGIC INSTITUTIONAL CHOICE, 28 U. Haw. L. Rev. 23, 80+ (2005) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 1918 WOMEN'S EXCLUSION FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL CANON, 2013 U. Ill. L. Rev. 1715, 1732 (2013) 1919 HOMOGENOUS RULES FOR HETEROGENEOUS FAMILIES: THE STANDARDIZATION OF FAMILY LAW WHEN THERE IS NO STANDARD FAMILY, 2012 U. Ill. L. Rev. 319, 371 (2012) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1920 NINE PERSPECTIVES ON LIVING ORIGINALISM, 2012 U. Ill. L. Rev. 815, 877 (2012) 1921 DESIGNATED BENEFICIARY AGREEMENTS: A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION FOR UNMARRIED COUPLES, 2011 U. Ill. L. Rev. 267, 307+ (2011) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 1922 'TIL DEATH DO YOU PART . . . AND THIS TIME WE MEAN IT: DENIAL OF ACCESS TO DIVORCE FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES, 2010 U. Ill. L. Rev. 1013, 1043+ (2010) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 1923 PERFECTIONIST POLICIES IN FAMILY LAW, 2007 U. Ill. L. Rev. 1055, 1068 (2007) HN: 38 (N.E.2d) 1924 THE ULTIMATE GENDER STEREOTYPE: EQUALIZING GENDERCONFORMING AND GENDER-NONCONFORMING HOMOSEXUALS UNDER TITLE VII, 2004 U. Ill. L. Rev. 465, 499 (2004)
1925 LETTER FROM IOWA: SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND THE OUSTER OF THREE JUSTICES, 59 U. Kan. L. Rev. 715, 745 (2011) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 1926 KANSAS'S DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE AMENDMENT: THE PROBLEMATIC CONSEQUENCES OF A BLANKET NONRECOGNITION RULE ON KANSAS LAW, 54 U. Kan. L. Rev. 1165, 1210+ (2006) HN: 36,41,42 (N.E.2d) 1927 TRADITIONALISM, MAJORITARIAN MORALITY, AND THE HOMOSEXUAL SODOMY ISSUE: THE JOURNEY FROM BOWERS TO LAWRENCE, 53 U. Kan. L. Rev. 1, 80+ (2004) HN: 38 (N.E.2d) 1928 KING AND KING: LEARNING TO TREAT OTHERS ROYALLY THROUGH DIVERSITY EDUCATION, 31 U. La Verne L. Rev. 109, 138+ (2009) HN: 31,32,36 (N.E.2d) 1929 DEATH WITH DIGNITY'S EMERGING CONCEIT: COULD VACCO V. QUILL BE LOSING ITS APPEAL?, 31 U. La Verne L. Rev. 45, 66 (2009) 1930 THE MIGRATION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE FROM CANADA TO THE UNITED STATES: AN INCREMENTAL APPROACH, 30 U. La Verne L. Rev. 200, 215+ (2008) HN: 31,36,42 (N.E.2d) 1931 AVAILABILITY OF SPOUSAL PRIVILEGES FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES, 11 U. Md. L.J. Race, Religion, Gender & Class 224, 257+ (2011) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1932 AND THE BAN PLAYS ON . . . FOR NOW: WHY COURTS MUST CONSIDER RELIGION IN MARRIAGE EQUALITY CASES, 10 U. Md. L.J. Race, Religion, Gender & Class 221, 247+ (2010) HN: 2,6,34 (N.E.2d) 1933 THE ROLE OF COURTS VIS--VIS LEGISLATURES IN THE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE CONTEXT: SEXUAL ORIENTATION AS A SUSPECT CLASSIFICATION, 9 U. Md. L.J. Race, Religion, Gender & Class 213, 239+ (2009) HN: 27 (N.E.2d) 1934 THE LOST LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT: LESSONS FROM THE UNPUBLISHED 1983 MARKUP BY THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, 7 U. Md. L.J. Race, Religion, Gender & Class 341, 374+ (2007) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 1935 THE SANCTITY OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY OF MINORITY FAITHS UNDER STATE CONSTITUTIONS: THREE HYPOTHESES, 6 U. Md. L.J. Race, Religion, Gender & Class 21, 50+ (2006) 1936 GENDER: MALE OR FEMALE? IN RE HEILIG AND THE FUTURE OF CHECK-THE-BOX, 4 U. Md. L.J. Race, Religion, Gender & Class 411, 428+ (2004) 1937 CUBAN CREDITORS, AMERICAN DEBTORS: SPREADING RISK ALLOCATION IN A COMMUNIST STATE, 36 U. Miami Inter-Am. L. Rev. 271, 291 (2005) 1938 MARRIAGE IN THE TIME OF INTERNET MINISTERS: I NOW PRONOUNCE YOU MARRIED, BUT WHO AM I TO DO SO?, 64 U. Miami L. Rev. 809, 877 (2010)
1939 THE ULTIMATE ASSOCIATION: SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND THE BATTLE AGAINST JIM CROW'S OTHER COUSIN, 63 U. Miami L. Rev. 269, 299 (2008) 1940 SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, INDIAN TRIBES, AND THE CONSTITUTION, 61 U. Miami L. Rev. 53, 85+ (2006) 1941 THE PROBATE DEFINITION OF FAMILY: A PROPOSAL FOR GUIDED DISCRETION IN INTESTACY, 45 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 787, 827+ (2012) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1942 TWO SPIRITS, TWO ERAS, SAME SEX: FOR A TRADITIONALIST PERSPECTIVE ON NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBAL SAME-SEX MARRIAGE POLICY, 39 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 823, 850 (2006) 1943 BALANCING THE DEMANDS OF THE WORKPLACE WITH THE NEEDS OF THE MODERN FAMILY: EXPANDING FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE TO PROTECT DOMESTIC PARTNERS, 37 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 837, 877+ (2004) HN: 31 (N.E.2d) 1944 IN LOVE AND IN JEOPARDY: WHY LEGAL RECOGNITION OF SAMESEX UNIONS DOES NOT END THE NEED FOR DOMESTIC PARTNER BENEFIT PROGRAMS, 10 U. Pa. J. Bus. & Emp. L. 225, 243+ (2007) 1945 BEYOND ECONOMIC SUBSTANCE: INTERROGATING THE FULL IMPACTS OF THIRD-PARTY RELATIONSHIPS IN TAX SHELTER CASES, 13 U. Pa. J. Bus. L. 383, 443 (2011) HN: 8 (N.E.2d) 1946 EQUALITY FEDERALISM: A SOLUTION TO THE MARRIAGE WARS, 15 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 377, 461+ (2012) HN: 2,34 (N.E.2d) 1947 SCIENCE OR STIGMA: POTENTIAL CHALLENGES TO THE FDA'S BAN ON GAY BLOOD, 14 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 485, 510+ (2011) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1948 WHY LIBERTY JUDICIAL REVIEW IS AS LEGITIMATE AS EQUALITY REVIEW: THE CASE OF GAY RIGHTS JURISPRUDENCE, 14 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 1, 76+ (2011) HN: 33,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1949 PUBLIC OPINION AND STATE SUPREME COURTS, 13 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 455, 496 (2010) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1950 THE USUAL SUSPECT CLASSIFICATIONS: CRIMINALS, ALIENS AND THE FUTURE OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 12 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 1, 56 (2009) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1951 "WHAT'S IN A NAME?" : CIVIL UNIONS AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL SIGNIFICANCE OF "MARRIAGE", 10 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 607, 642+ (2008) HN: 15 (N.E.2d) 1952 THE FAILURE OF FEDERALISM: DOES COMPETITIVE FEDERALISM ACTUALLY PROTECT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS?, 10 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 643, 664+ (2008) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 1953 THE EQUAL APPLICATION DEFENSE: THE EQUAL APPLICATION DEFENSE, 9 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 1207, 1231+ (2007) 1954 SEX AND DEATH: LAWRENCE'S LIBERTY AND PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED
SUICIDE, 9 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 1003, 1032+ (2007) 1955 THE ENUMERATION OF RIGHTS: "LET ME COUNT THE WAYS", 9 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 281, 289 (2006) 1956 THE "HOLEY" BONDS OF MATRIMONY: A CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO BURDENSOME DIVORCE LAWS, 8 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 877, 901+ (2006) HN: 15 (N.E.2d) 1957 THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF RELIGION AND THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF LAW, WITH SOME IMPLICATIONS FOR DIALOGUE, 8 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 335, 354+ (2006) 1958 PROTECTING LAWS DESIGNED TO REMEDY ANTI-GAY DISCRIMINATION FROM EQUAL PROTECTION CHALLENGES: THE DESIRABILITY OF RATIONAL BASIS SCRUTINY, 8 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 513, 558+ (2006) HN: 31,36 (N.E.2d) 1959 PROTECTED CONDUCT AND VISUAL PLEASURE: A DISCURSIVE ANALYSIS OF LAWRENCE AND BARNES, 7 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 1131, 1153+ (2005) 1960 THE LIMITED PATH DEPENDENCY OF PRECEDENT, 7 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 903, 1000 (2005) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 1961 THE NEW FORMALISM: REQUIEM FOR TIERED SCRUTINY?, 6 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 945, 997+ (2004) HN: 31,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1962 WHY I STILL WON'T TEACH MARBURY (EXCEPT IN A SEMINAR), 6 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 588, 603 (2004) 1963 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS AND THE PARADOX OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGES AND EQUAL RIGHTS, 8 U. Pa. J. Lab. & Emp. L. 543, 573+ (2006) HN: 17,31,42 (N.E.2d) 1964 EQUAL ACCESS AND THE RIGHT TO MARRY, 158 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1375, 1449+ (2010) 1965 VOWS TO COLLIDE: THE BURGEONING CONFLICT BETWEEN RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE ANTIDISCRIMINATION LAWS, 158 U. Pa. L. Rev. 179, 230+ (2009) 1966 BETWEEN HOME AND SCHOOL, 155 U. Pa. L. Rev. 833, 898 (2007) 1967 EXECUTIVE REVIEW IN THE FRAGMENTED EXECUTIVE: STATE CONSTITUTIONALISM AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 154 U. Pa. L. Rev. 565, 648 (2006) 1968 INTERSTATE RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGES AND CIVIL UNIONS: A HANDBOOK FOR JUDGES, 153 U. Pa. L. Rev. 2143, 2194 (2005) 1969 SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: REFINING THE CONFLICT OF LAWS ANALYSIS, 153 U. Pa. L. Rev. 2195, 2214+ (2005) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 1970 BEYOND ECONOMIC FATHERHOOD: ENCOURAGING DIVORCED FATHERS TO PARENT, 153 U. Pa. L. Rev. 921, 1009 (2005) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1971 SAME STRUGGLE, DIFFERENT DIFFERENCE: ADA ACCOMMODATIONS
AS ANTIDISCRIMINATION, 153 U. Pa. L. Rev. 579, 673+ (2004) 1972 A CRITIQUE OF THE STRICT LIABILITY STANDARD FOR DETERMINING CHILD SUPPORT IN CASES OF MALE VICTIMS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT AND STATUTORY RAPE, 152 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1957, 1999+ (2004) HN: 38 (N.E.2d) 1973 THE ARGUMENT FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 159 U. Pa. L. Rev. PENNumbra 21, 24+ (2010) 1974 SURVEYING THE LEGAL LANDSCAPE FOR PENNSYLVANIA SAME-SEX COUPLES, 71 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 187, 215 (2009) 1975 BEYOND FORMALIST SOVEREIGNTY: WHO CAN REPRESENT "WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES" TODAY?, 45 U. Rich. L. Rev. 549, 645 (2011) 1976 FRICTION BY DESIGN: THE NECESSARY CONTEST OF STATE JUDICIAL POWER AND LEGISLATIVE POLICYMAKING, 43 U. Rich. L. Rev. 571, 621 (2009) 1977 OUR FOUNDING FEELINGS: EMOTION, COMMITMENT, AND IMAGINATION IN CONSTITUTIONAL CULTURE, 43 U. Rich. L. Rev. 623, 683 (2009) 1978 FAMILY AND JUVENILE LAW, 42 U. Rich. L. Rev. 417, 439+ (2007) HN: 38 (N.E.2d) 1979 LOVE DOESN'T PAY: THE FICTION OF MARRIAGE RIGHTS IN THE WORKPLACE, 40 U. Rich. L. Rev. 867, 947+ (2006) HN: 11 (N.E.2d) 1980 MARRIAGE IN ITS PROCREATIVE DIMENSION: THE MEANING OF THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE THROUGHOUT THE AGES, 6 U. St. Thomas L.J. 454, 485+ (2009) HN: 15 (N.E.2d) 1981 THE GOVERNMENT WE DESERVE? DIRECT DEMOCRACY, OUTRAGED MAJORITIES, AND THE DECLINE OF JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE, 4 U. St. Thomas L.J. 132, 156+ (2006) 1982 THE CONSISTENT ETHIC OF LIFE: A PROPOSAL FOR IMPROVING ITS LEGISLATIVE GRASP, 2 U. St. Thomas L.J. 326, 351 (2005) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 1983 FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT: YES OR NO?, 2 U. St. Thomas L.J. 1, 4 (2004) 1984 MARRIAGE, PARENTAL RIGHTS, AND PUBLIC POLICY: ON THE FMA, ITS PURPORTED JUSTIFICATION, AND ITS LIKELY EFFECTS ON FAMILIES, 2 U. St. Thomas L.J. 118, 136 (2004) 1985 THE PROPOSED FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT AND THE RISKS TO FEDERALISM IN FAMILY LAW, 2 U. St. Thomas L.J. 137, 198+ (2004) HN: 36,38 (N.E.2d) 1986 GOD'S LAW AND MAN'S LAW: CAN THEY PEACEFULLY CO-EXIST IN THE LIFE OF A CHRISTIAN APPELLATE JUDGE?, 2 U. St. Thomas L.J. 224, 234 (2004)
1987 (HOW) WILL GAY MARRIAGE WEAKEN MARRIAGE AS A SOCIAL INSTITUTION: A REPLY TO ANDREW KOPPELMAN, 2 U. St. Thomas L.J. 33, 70+ (2004) HN: 31 (N.E.2d) 1988 THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE CASE AGAINST SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 2 U. St. Thomas L.J. 5, 32 (2004) 1989 FOUR ARGUMENTS AGAINST A MARRIAGE AMENDMENT THAT EVEN AN OPPONENT OF GAY MARRIAGE SHOULD ACCEPT, 2 U. St. Thomas L.J. 71, 94+ (2004) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 1990 RESTORING DEMOCRATIC SELF-GOVERNANCE THROUGH THE FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT, 2 U. St. Thomas L.J. 95, 117+ (2004) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 1991 THE GINGERBREAD MAN THIRTY YEARS ON: THE PARLOUS STATE OF MARITAL THEORY, 1 U. St. Thomas L.J. 656, 712+ (2003) HN: 15,31 (N.E.2d) 1992 THE IRS MOVES TOWARD INCOME TAX EQUALITY FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES DESPITE DOMA, 45 U.S.F. L. Rev. 1145, 1172+ (2011) HN: 2,34 (N.E.2d) 1993 WHAT DOES BRISTOL PALIN HAVE TO DO WITH SAME-SEX MARRIAGE?, 45 U.S.F. L. Rev. 313, 356 (2010) HN: 2,6,34 (N.E.2d) 1994 BY ANY OTHER NAME: THE SOCIAL AND LEGAL STAKES OF SAMESEX MARRIAGE, 45 U.S.F. L. Rev. 357, 387+ (2010) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1995 GAYS, JEWS, AND OTHER STRANGERS IN A STRANGE LAND: THE CASE FOR RECIPROCAL ACCOMMODATION OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND THE RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY, 45 U.S.F. L. Rev. 389, 436 (2010) HN: 2,6,34 (N.E.2d) 1996 THE "CONSTITUTION" OF MARRIAGE, AND THE "CONSTITUTIONS" OF NATIONS, 45 U.S.F. L. Rev. 437, 479 (2010) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 1997 THE PARADOXES OF POPULAR CONSTITUTIONALISM: PROPOSITION 8 AND STRAUSS V. HORTON, 45 U.S.F. L. Rev. 517, 596 (2010) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 1998 THROUGH THE PRICE WATERHOUSE-LOOKING GLASS: DOMINANCE AND OPPRESSION REVEALED, 43 U.S.F. L. Rev. 703, 731+ (2009) HN: 15 (N.E.2d) 1999 ABSTINENCE-ONLY ADOLESCENT EDUCATION: INEFFECTIVE, UNPOPULAR, AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL, 38 U.S.F. L. Rev. 665, 700+ (2004) 2000 SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS: A HISTORY OF LIBERTY IN THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE, 2 U. St. Thomas J. L. & Pub. Pol'y 125, 140 (2008) HN: 2,34 (N.E.2d) 2001 CHILDREN OF MEN: BALANCING THE INHERITANCE RIGHTS OF MARITAL AND NON-MARITAL CHILDREN, 39 U. Tol. L. Rev. 1, 40 (2007) HN: 34 (N.E.2d)
2002 WHAT MISSOURI "SHOWS ME' ABOUT SEXUAL ORIENTATION LEGISLATION, 37 U. Tol. L. Rev. 807, 840+ (2006) HN: 36,42 (N.E.2d) 2003 THE PHANTOM STANDARD: COMPELLING STATE INTEREST ANALYSIS AND POLITICAL IDEOLOGY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION CONTEXT, 2013 Utah L. Rev. 409, 435 (2013) 2004 THE PARADOX OF POLITICAL POWER: SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND THE SUPREME COURT, 2012 Utah L. Rev. 527, 543 (2012) HN: 2,6 (N.E.2d) 2005 TWO STEPS BEHIND: THE LAW'S STRUGGLE TO KEEP PACE WITH THE CHANGING DYNAMICS OF THE AMERICAN FAMILY, 2009 Utah L. Rev. 557, 563 (2009) 2006 THE PUZZLING PARAMETERS OF THE FOREIGN LAW DEBATE, 2007 Utah L. Rev. 167, 214 (2007) 2007 TWO WAYS TO END A MARRIAGE: DIVORCE OR DEATH, 2005 Utah L. Rev. 1227, 1290 (2005) 2008 TENTH CIRCUIT JUDICIAL CONFERENCE, 2005 Utah L. Rev. 169, 184 (2005) 2009 TENTH CIRCUIT JUDICIAL CONFERENCE, 2005 Utah L. Rev. 185, 197+ (2005) 2010 TENTH CIRCUIT JUDICIAL CONFERENCE, 2005 Utah L. Rev. 199, 213 (2005) 2011 MARRIAGE AND THE STRUGGLE FOR GAY, LESBIAN, AND BLACK LIBERATION, 2005 Utah L. Rev. 781, 801+ (2005) HN: 17 (N.E.2d) .... SIX MYTHS THAT CONFUSE THE MARRIAGE EQUALITY DEBATE, 46 Val. U. L. Rev. 103, 116+ (2011) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) (Text not available on WESTLAW) 2013 GIVING DOMA SOME CREDIT: THE VALIDITY OF APPLYING DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACTS TO CIVIL UNIONS UNDER THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE, 38 Val. U. L. Rev. 1509, 1568+ (2004) HN: 28,36 (N.E.2d) 2014 WHEN GLOBALIZATION HITS HOME: INTERNATIONAL FAMILY LAW COMES OF AGE, 39 Vand. J. Transnat'l L. 1551, 1603 (2006) 2015 ON THE LIMITS OF SUPREMACY: MEDICAL MARIJUANA AND THE STATES' OVERLOOKED POWER TO LEGALIZE FEDERAL CRIME, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 1421, 1482+ (2009) 2016 TOWARDS AN ESTABLISHMENT THEORY OF GAY PERSONHOOD, 58 Vand. L. Rev. 555, 597 (2005) 2017 THE LEGAL REGULATION OF GAY AND LESBIAN FAMILIES AS INTERSTATE IMMIGRATION LAW, 65 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 11, 15+ (2012) HN: 2,34,42 (N.E.2d) 2018 SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN LAW AND SOCIETY: DARTMOUTH COLLEGE'S LAW DAY PROGRAM 2009, 34 Vt. L. Rev. 231, 242+ (2009) 2019 TRANSCRIPT OF LAW DAY PANEL, 34 Vt. L. Rev. 243, 275+ (2009) HN:
15,17 (N.E.2d) 2020 WE'VE HEARD THIS BEFORE: THE LEGACY OF INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE BANS AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR TODAY'S MARRIAGE EQUALITY DEBATES, 34 Vt. L. Rev. 277, 289+ (2009) 2021 CIVIL UNION, A REAPPRAISAL, 30 Vt. L. Rev. 891, 892+ (2006) 2022 PARTING IS SUCH SWEET SORROW, BUT DOES IT HAVE TO BE SO COMPLICATED? TRANSMISSION OF PROPERTY AT DEATH IN VERMONT, 29 Vt. L. Rev. 895, 949 (2005) 2023 A PRIVACY RIGHT TO PUBLIC RECOGNITION OF FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS? THE CASES OF MARRIAGE AND ADOPTION, 51 Vill. L. Rev. 891, 920+ (2006) HN: 21 (N.E.2d) 2024 LAWRENCE'S QUINTESSENTIAL MILLIAN MOMENT AND ITS IMPACT ON THE DOCTRINE OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDITIONS, 50 Vill. L. Rev. 117, 162+ (2005) 2025 THE PATERNITY ESTABLISHMENT THEORY OF MARRIAGE AND ITS RAMIFICATIONS FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS, 19 Va. J. Soc. Pol'y & L. 133, 168+ (2011) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2026 EXPLORING THE IMPACT OF THE MARRIAGE AMENDMENTS: CAN PUBLIC EMPLOYERS OFFER DOMESTIC PARTNER BENEFITS TO THEIR GAY AND LESBIAN EMPLOYEES?, 17 Va. J. Soc. Pol'y & L. 83, 143+ (2009) 2027 MISTAKING MARRIAGE FOR SOCIAL POLICY, 11 Va. J. Soc. Pol'y & L. 307, 371+ (2004) HN: 15 (N.E.2d) 2028 SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, SECOND-CLASS CITIZENSHIP, AND LAW'S SOCIAL MEANINGS, 97 Va. L. Rev. 1267, 1346+ (2011) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2029 THE NETWORKED FAMILY: REFRAMING THE LEGAL UNDERSTANDING OF CAREGIVING AND CAREGIVERS, 94 Va. L. Rev. 385, 455+ (2008) HN: 38 (N.E.2d) 2030 WHAT BROWN TEACHES US ABOUT CONSTITUTIONAL THEORY, 90 Va. L. Rev. 1537, 1577 (2004) 2031 REMAKING LAWRENCE, 98 Va. L. Rev. In Brief 61, 66+ (2012) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2032 SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN ISLAMIC LAW, 2 Wake Forest J.L. & Pol'y 375, 470+ (2012) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2033 RESHAPING FEDERAL JURISDICTION: CONGRESS'S LATEST CHALLENGE TO JUDICIAL REVIEW, 41 Wake Forest L. Rev. 1003, 1043 (2006) 2034 IS POLITICAL POWERLESSNESS A REQUIREMENT FOR HEIGHTENED EQUAL PROTECTION SCRUTINY?, 50 Washburn L.J. 1, 31+ (2010) HN: 27 (N.E.2d) 2035 NOT THE USUAL SUSPECTS: SUSPECT CLASSIFICATION
DETERMINATIONS AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE PROHIBITIONS, 50 Washburn L.J. 61, 77+ (2010) HN: 31,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2036 THE JUDICIAL IMPOSITION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: THE BOUNDARIES OF JUDICIAL LEGITIMACY AND LEGITIMATE REDEFINITION OF MARRIAGE, 50 Washburn L.J. 79, 107 (2010) 2037 ELUDING THE GRIM REAPER: HOW SECTION 2 OF THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT COULD SURVIVE STRICT SCRUTINY, 19 Wash. & Lee J. Civil Rts. & Soc. Just. 151, 182 (2012) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2038 MICROPERFORMANCES OF IDENTITY: VISIBLE SAME-SEX COUPLES AND THE MARRIAGE CONTROVERSY, 15 Wash. & Lee J. Civil Rts. & Soc. Just. 3, 84+ (2008) HN: 17 (N.E.2d) 2039 GENDER TROUBLE IN THE LAW: ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE USE OF STATUS/CONDUCT BINARIES IN SEXUAL ORIENTATION LAW, 15 Wash. & Lee J. Civil Rts. & Soc. Just. 147, 157+ (2008) HN: 31,36 (N.E.2d) 2040 PAPER DAUGHTERS, 12 Wash. & Lee J. Civil Rts. & Soc. Just. 41, 79+ (2005) HN: 15 (N.E.2d) 2041 MARRIED AGAINST THEIR WILL? TOWARD A PLURALIST REGULATION OF SPOUSAL RELATIONSHIPS, 66 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1565, 1634 (2009) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 2042 THE UNINTENDED TAX ADVANTAGES OF GAY MARRIAGE, 65 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1529, 1592 (2008) 2043 THE GENUINE ARTICLE: A SUBVERSIVE ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE ON THE LAW'S PROCREATIONIST VISION OF MARRIAGE, 64 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 393, 468+ (2007) HN: 31,32,34 (N.E.2d) 2044 CONGRESS GAVE AND CONGRESS HATH TAKEN AWAY: JURISDICTION WITHDRAWAL AND THE CONSTITUTION, 62 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1139, 1218 (2005) 2045 AN UNEASY UNION: SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION IN WASHINGTON STATE, 88 Wash. L. Rev. 1119, 1126+ (2013) HN: 31,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2046 BEYOND RATIONAL RELATIONS: THE CONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITIES OF ANTI-GAY PARTNERSHIP LAWS UNDER THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE, 81 Wash. L. Rev. 417, 445+ (2006) HN: 17,31 (N.E.2d) 2047 YOU CAN'T TAKE IT WITH YOU: CONSTITUTIONAL CONSEQUENCES OF INTERSTATE GENDER-IDENTITY RULINGS, 80 Wash. L. Rev. 819, 885+ (2005) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 2048 DOES SEX MATTER? WASHINGTON'S DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT UNDER THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT OF THE WASHINGTON STATE CONSTITUTION, 80 Wash. L. Rev. 535, 563+ (2005) HN: 32,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2049 10 Wash. U. Global Stud. L. Rev. 143, IS SAME-SEX MARRIAGE A THREAT TO TRADITIONAL MARRIAGES?: HOW COURTS STRUGGLE WITH THE
QUESTION (2011) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2050 QUEER/RELIGIOUS FRIENDSHIP IN THE OBAMA ERA, 33 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol'y 211, 272+ (2010) 2051 INTRODUCTION, 24 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol'y 1, 7 (2007) 2052 FROM FUNCTIONAL FAMILY TO SPINSTER SISTERS: AUSTRALIA'S DISTINCTIVE PATH TO RELATIONSHIP RECOGNITION, 24 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol'y 121, 164+ (2007) 2053 STATE V. CARSWELL: THE WHIPSAWS OF BACKLASH, 24 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol'y 165, 205+ (2007) 2054 POWER COUPLES: LAWMAKERS, LOBBYISTS, AND THE STATE OF THEIR UNIONS, 24 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol'y 207, 263+ (2007) HN: 41 (N.E.2d) 2055 COMMUNITY PARENTING, 24 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol'y 47, 77+ (2007) HN: 13 (N.E.2d) 2056 SUBVERTING THE MARRIAGE-AMENDMENT CRUSADE WITH LAW AND POLICY REFORM, 24 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol'y 79, 120+ (2007) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 2057 FAMILY STRUCTURE, CHILDREN, AND LAW, 24 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol'y 9, 29+ (2007) HN: 15,31,34 (N.E.2d) 2058 SECOND-PARENT ADOPTION AND THE EQUITABLE PARENT DOCTRINE: THE FUTURE OF CUSTODY AND VISITATION RIGHTS FOR SAME-SEX PARTNERS IN MISSOURI, 20 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol'y 283, 309+ (2006) HN: 11,15,34 (N.E.2d) 2059 SURPRISING LEGACIES OF BROWN V. BOARD, 16 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol'y 11, 42 (2004) 2060 FOR BETTER AND FOR BETTER: THE CASE FOR ABOLISHING CIVIL MARRIAGE, 5 Wash. U. Jurisprudence Rev. 189, 256 (2013) 2061 JUDICIAL SELECTION AND THE RELIGIOUS TEST CLAUSE, 82 Wash. U. L.Q. 1129, 1167 (2004) HN: 7 (N.E.2d) 2062 PAST AND PRESENT PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION REGARDING MARRIAGE, 82 Wash. U. L.Q. 611, 666+ (2004) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 2063 EQUAL PROTECTION FOR CHILDREN OF SAME-SEX PARENTS, 90 Wash. U. L. Rev. 1589, 1627+ (2013) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2064 TAXING POLYGAMY, 91 Wash. U. L. Rev. 113, 168 (2013) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2065 CHANGING THE MARRIAGE EQUATION, 89 Wash. U. L. Rev. 721, 794 (2012) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2066 HOW NECESSARY IS THE RIGHT OF ASSEMBLY?, 89 Wash. U. L. Rev. 1403, 1422 (2012) HN: 9 (N.E.2d) 2067 LIBERTY'S FORGOTTEN REFUGEES? ENGENDERING ASSEMBLY, 89 Wash. U. L. Rev. 1423, 1434 (2012) HN: 36 (N.E.2d)
2068 ARGUMENTS AGAINST MARRIAGE EQUALITY: COMMEMORATING & RECONSTRUCTING LOVING V. VIRGINIA, 85 Wash. U. L. Rev. 575, 609 (2007) 2069 THE EXPRESSIVE IMPACT OF PATENTS, 84 Wash. U. L. Rev. 573, 622+ (2006) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 2070 THE CONSTITUTION SHOULD PROTECT THE RIGHT TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 49 Wayne L. Rev. 975, 1005+ (2004) HN: 31,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2071 THE REACTIONARY ROAD TO FREE LOVE: HOW DOMA, STATE MARRIAGE AMENDMENTS, AND SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES UNDERMINE TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE, 115 W. Va. L. Rev. 205, 304+ (2012) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2072 RELIGIOUS V. SECULAR IDEOLOGIES AND SEX EDUCATION: A RESPONSE TO PROFESSORS CAHN AND CARBONE, 110 W. Va. L. Rev. 501, 513 (2007) HN: 17 (N.E.2d) 2073 CONFRONTING AMERICA'S AMBIVALENCE TOWARDS SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: A LEGAL AND POLICY PERSPECTIVE, 108 W. Va. L. Rev. 267, 307+ (2005) HN: 11,17,32 (N.E.2d) 2074 COSTS OF SOVEREIGNTY, 107 W. Va. L. Rev. 385, 441+ (2005) HN: 38 (N.E.2d) 2075 WHY MASSACHUSETTS SHOULD NOT RELEGATE PARENTS TO "LEGAL STRANGERS" : A SURVEY OF THE MYRIAD INTERPRETATIONS OF THE ICPC, 35 W. New Eng. L. Rev. 77, 97 (2013) 2076 EXCHANGE AS A CORNERSTONE OF FAMILIES, 34 W. New Eng. L. Rev. 405, 444 (2012) 2077 THE PLACE OF LAW IN IVAN ILLICH'S VISION OF SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION, 34 W. New Eng. L. Rev. 507, 536 (2012) 2078 FAMILY LAW-MATERNAL AND JOINT CUSTODY PRESUMPTIONS FOR UNMARRIED PARENTS: CONSTITUTIONAL AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS IN MASSACHUSETTS AND BEYOND, 32 W. New Eng. L. Rev. 599, 659+ (2010) HN: 29 (N.E.2d) 2079 FOREWORD, 30 W. New Eng. L. Rev. 671, 674 (2008) HN: 17 (N.E.2d) 2080 ESTATE PLANNING AND THE TRANSGENDER CLIENT, 30 W. New Eng. L. Rev. 675, 711+ (2008) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 2081 GROWING OLD TOGETHER: ESTATE PLANNING CONCERNS FOR THE AGING SAME-SEX COUPLE, 30 W. New Eng. L. Rev. 713, 749+ (2008) 2082 NUTS AND BOLTS: ESTATE PLANNING AND FAMILY LAW CONSIDERATIONS FOR SAME-SEX FAMILIES, 30 W. New Eng. L. Rev. 751, 771 (2008) 2083 UNIFORM PARENTAGE ACT-SAY GOODBYE TO DONNA REED: RECOGNIZING STEPMOTHERS' RIGHTS, 30 W. New Eng. L. Rev. 773, 816 (2008)
2084 EVIDENCE - THE MOTION IN LIMINE AND THE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS: ADVOCATING FOR THE AVAILABILITY OF THE NECESSITY DEFENSE FOR SOME OF THE BAY STATE'S CIVILLY DISOBEDIENT, 27 W. New Eng. L. Rev. 299, 364 (2005) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 2085 PROBATION RESTRICTIONS IMPACTING THE RIGHT TO PROCREATE: THE OAKLEY ERROR, 26 W. New Eng. L. Rev. 81, 108 (2004) HN: 27 (N.E.2d) 2086 THE FATE OF CALIFORNIA'S MARRIAGE LAWS IN THE HANDS OF THE COURT, 32 W. St. U. L. Rev. 271, 286+ (2005) 2087 12 Whittier J. Child & Fam. Advoc. 1, WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?: CHILD-CENTERED CHALLENGES TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE BANS (2012) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 2088 9 Whittier J. Child & Fam. Advoc. 279, IN WHOSE BEST INTEREST? FLORIDA'S STATUTORY BAN ON HOMOSEXUAL ADOPTION AND THE ARGUMENTS SET FORTH IN SUPPORT OF AN ABSOLUTE BAN, REPRESENT THE PERCEIVED BEST INTEREST OF A CONSERVATIVE MORALITY AND NOT THOSE OF THE CHIL (2010) 2089 7 Whittier J. Child & Fam. Advoc. 277, IF YOU CAN'T FIX IT, YOU'VE GOT TO STAND IT: LOFTON V. SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES AND THE FLORIDA ADOPTION STATUTE'S DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOMOSEXUALS AND FOSTER CHILDREN (2008) HN: 17 (N.E.2d) 2090 6 Whittier J. Child & Fam. Advoc. 331, CONSTITUTIONS AND MARRIAGE (2007) 2091 6 Whittier J. Child & Fam. Advoc. 463, TAKING A CLOSER STEP TOWARD EQUALITY: DOMESTIC PARTNER BENEFITS FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES AND THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SYSTEM (2007) 2092 6 Whittier J. Child & Fam. Advoc. 217, THE CASE FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN CALIFORNIA FROM A SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE (2006) HN: 31,34,41 (N.E.2d) 2093 6 Whittier J. Child & Fam. Advoc. 53, WHAT IS MARRIAGE? (2006) 2094 4 Whittier J. Child & Fam. Advoc. 233, CHOICE AND KINSHIP IN CONTEMPORARY FAMILY LAW (2005) HN: 13 (N.E.2d) 2095 4 Whittier J. Child & Fam. Advoc. 241, MARRIED WITH KIDS AND MOVING: ACHIEVING RECOGNITION FOR SAME-SEX PARENTS UNDER THE UNIFORM PARENTAGE ACT (2005) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 2096 4 Whittier J. Child & Fam. Advoc. 491, THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD Incorporating the Needs and Interests of Children of Nonmarital Families into the Visitation Rights Dialogue (2005) 2097 3 Whittier J. Child & Fam. Advoc. 231, SAME-SEX UNIONS AND CONFLICTS OF LAW: WHEN "I DO" MAY BE INTERPRETED AS "NO, YOU DIDN'T!" (2004) HN: 31,36 (N.E.2d)
2098 FIRST COMES LOVE, THEN COMES "MARRIAGE"? NOT FOR SOME: A LOOK AT THE STRUGGLE OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO BE RECOGNIZED AS LEGALLY "MARRIED", 31 Whittier L. Rev. 345, 375+ (2009) HN: 17,31,36 (N.E.2d) 2099 WHAT'S LOVE GOT TO DO WITH IT? THE CORPORATIONS MODEL OF MARRIAGE IN THE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE DEBATE, 28 Whittier L. Rev. 1239, 1301+ (2007) HN: 17,31,36 (N.E.2d) 2100 17 Widener L.J. 73, OVERRULING DRED SCOTT: THE CASE FOR SAMESEX MARRIAGE (2007) 2101 15 Widener L.J. 135, DANGEROUS PREDICTIONS: REFERENCING "EMERGING" HISTORY AND TRADITION IN SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS JURISPRUDENCE IN AN ERA OF BLUE STATE FEDERALISM (2005) 2102 13 Widener L.J. 691, INTRODUCTION: MARRIAGE, EQUALITY AND AMERICA: COMMITTED COUPLES, COMMITTED LIVES (2004) 2103 13 Widener L.J. 699, USING AN "INCIDENTS OF MARRIAGE" ANALYSIS WHEN CONSIDERING INTERSTATE RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX COUPLES' MARRIAGES, CIVIL UNIONS, AND DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS (2004) HN: 31,38,42 (N.E.2d) 2104 13 Widener L.J. 759, THE HETEROSEXUAL AGENDA (2004) HN: 31,36,42 (N.E.2d) 2105 13 Widener L.J. 799, THE PRESIDENT, GAY MARRIAGE, AND THE CONSTITUTION: A TANGLED WEB (2004) 2106 13 Widener L.J. 825, RECOGNIZING FRIENDS AMIDST THE RUBBLE: SEEKING TRUTH OUTSIDE THE CULTURE WARS (2004) HN: 17 (N.E.2d) 2107 13 Widener L.J. 831, TOWARD A MORE PERFECT UNION: THE ROAD TO MARRIAGE EQUALITY FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES (2004) HN: 15,31,36 (N.E.2d) 2108 13 Widener L.J. 859, INTERPRETATIONS OF LOVING IN LAWRENCE, BAKER, AND GOODRIDGE: ON EQUAL PROTECTION AND THE TIERS OF SCRUTINY (2004) HN: 27,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2109 THOUGHTS ON LAWRENCE V. TEXAS, 11 Widener L. Rev. 171, 187 (2005) 2110 "LAWRENCE-IUM": THE DENSEST KNOWN SUBSTANCE?, 11 Widener L. Rev. 259, 276+ (2005) 2111 THE HARM OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: REAL OR IMAGINED?, 11 Widener L. Rev. 277, 308 (2005) 2112 SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS AND STATE CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS, 43 Willamette L. Rev. 235, 249+ (2007) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 2113 THE GAY CODES: FEDERAL & STATE LAWS EXCLUDING GAY & LESBIAN FAMILIES, 41 Willamette L. Rev. 881, 940+ (2005) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 2114 SOCIAL SCIENCE STUDIES AND THE CHILDREN OF LESBIANS AND
GAY MEN: THE RATIONAL BASIS PERSPECTIVE, 21 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 691, 764+ (2013) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2115 LAWRENCE'S STEALTH CONSTITUTIONALISM AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LITIGATION, 21 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 765, 789+ (2013) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2116 THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT AND UNCATEGORICAL FEDERALISM, 19 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 805, 828 (2011) 2117 A WELFARE STATE OF CIVIL RIGHTS: THE TRIUMPH OF THE THERAPEUTIC IN AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 16 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 649, 684+ (2008) 2118 EMPIRICISM, RELIGION, AND JUDICIAL DECISION-MAKING, 15 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 43, 57+ (2006) HN: 15 (N.E.2d) 2119 FORM AND SUBSTANCE IN PARENTAGE LAW, 15 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 203, 262+ (2006) HN: 31,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2120 FOREWORD: DISABLING BROWN, 14 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 1421, 1428+ (2006) 2121 THE BACKLASH THESIS AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: LEARNING FROM BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION AND ITS AFTERMATH, 14 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 1493, 1538+ (2006) HN: 38 (N.E.2d) 2122 FROM STONEWALL TO THE SUBURBS?: TOWARD A POLITICAL ECONOMY OF SEXUALITY, 14 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 1539, 1582 (2006) 2123 PARENTAGE AT BIRTH: BIRTHFATHERS AND SOCIAL FATHERHOOD, 14 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 909, 942 (2006) 2124 CONGRESSIONAL STRIPTEASE: HOW THE FAILURES OF THE 108TH CONGRESS'S JURISDICTION-STRIPPING BILLS WERE USED FOR POLITICAL SUCCESS, 14 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 1121, 1157+ (2006) 2125 UP AGAINST THE WALL OF SEPARATION: THE QUESTION OF AMERICAN RELIGIOUS DEMOCRACY, 14 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 555, 675 (2005) 2126 "SO LONG AS OUR SYSTEM SHALL EXIST": MYTH, HISTORY, AND THE NEW FEDERALISM, 14 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 711, 744 (2005) 2127 BEYOND GAY RIGHTS: LAWRENCE V. TEXAS AND THE PROMISE OF LIBERTY, 13 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 245, 274+ (2004) HN: 17 (N.E.2d) 2128 THE MEANING OF MARRIAGE: IMMIGRATION RULES AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR SAME-SEX SPOUSES IN A WORLD WITHOUT DOMA, 16 Wm. & Mary J. Women & L. 537, 611 (2010) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 2129 SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS AND THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE: REDUCING AMERICA TO THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR, 16 Wm. & Mary J. Women & L. 29, 82+ (2009) 2130 THE PARENT TRAP: DIFFERENTIAL FAMILIAL POWER IN SAME-SEX FAMILIES, 15 Wm. & Mary J. Women & L. 1, 49 (2008)
2131 POLYGAMY AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE - ALLIES OR ADVERSARIES WITHIN THE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE MOVEMENT, 14 Wm. & Mary J. Women & L. 559, 603+ (2008) 2132 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES OF JUDICIALLY IMPOSED CLOSETS IN CHILD CUSTODY AND VISITATION DISPUTES INVOLVING GAY OR LESBIAN PARENTS, 13 Wm. & Mary J. Women & L. 305, 348+ (2006) HN: 31,34 (N.E.2d) 2133 WHY SEGREGATED SCHOOLS FOR GAY STUDENTS MAY PASS A "SEPARATE BUT EQUAL' ANALYSIS BUT FAIL OTHER ISSUES AND CONCERNS, 12 Wm. & Mary J. Women & L. 101, 134 (2005) 2134 A PEACE PROPOSAL FOR THE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE WARS: RESTORING THE HOUSEHOLD TO ITS PROPER PLACE, 10 Wm. & Mary J. Women & L. 195, 293+ (2004) 2135 LAWS FOR LEARNING IN AN AGE OF ACCELERATION, 53 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 305, 350 (2011) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 2136 TRAGIC RIGHTS: THE RIGHTS CRITIQUE IN THE AGE OF OBAMA, 53 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 713, 746 (2011) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 2137 STATE REGULATION OF SEXUALITY IN INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW AND THEORY, 50 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 797, 936 (2008) 2138 MARRIAGE MIMICRY: THE LAW OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, 47 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1841, 1885+ (2006) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 2139 SEX, POLITICS, AND MORALITY, 47 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1, 48+ (2005) HN: 15 (N.E.2d) 2140 COOL FEDERALISM AND THE LIFE-CYCLE OF MORAL PROGRESS, 46 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1385, 1398 (2005) 2141 STRATEGIC PRAGMATISM OR RADICAL IDEALISM?: THE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENTS JUXTAPOSED, 2 Wm. & Mary Pol'y Rev. 194, 195+ (2010) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2142 AT A CROSSROADS: BRINGING MINNESOTA'S SAME-SEX COUPLES INTO THE LAW, 3 Wm. Mitchell J. L. & Prac. 1, 1+ (2009) 2143 STORIES OF CIVIL RIGHTS PROGRESS AND THE PERSISTENCE OF INEQUALITY AND UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITY 1970-2010, 37 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 857, 881 (2011) 2144 TEACHING LAW STUDENTS TO COMFORT THE TROUBLED AND TROUBLE THE COMFORTABLE: AN ESSAY ON THE PLACE OF POVERTY LAW IN THE LAW SCHOOL CURRICULUM, 35 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 1057, 1083 (2009) 2145 CONSTITUTIONAL CONFUSION: THE CASE FOR THE MINNESOTA MARRIAGE AMENDMENT, 33 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 1029, 1057+ (2007) HN: 36,38 (N.E.2d) 2146 SEPARATED AND UNEQUAL, 32 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 559, 597 (2006)
2147 CHANGES IN LATITUDES, CHANGES IN ATTITUDES: IS THERE A ROLE FOR CANADIAN JURISPRUDENCE IN ENDING DISCRIMINATION IN THE U.S. MILITARY?, 32 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 599, 624+ (2006) 2148 NOTE: LOVE KNOWS NO BORDERS-THE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE DEBATE AND IMMIGRATION LAWS, 32 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 625, 653+ (2006) HN: 36,42 (N.E.2d) 2149 THE "AUTHORITATIVE MOMENT": EXPLORING THE BOUNDARIES OF INTERPRETATION IN THE RECOGNITION OF QUEER FAMILIES, 32 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 655, 718+ (2006) 2150 NOTE: MINNESOTA'S PROPOSED SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AMENDMENT: A FLAMINGLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION OF FULL FAITH AND CREDIT, DUE PROCESS, AND EQUAL PROTECTION, 31 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 1649, 1676+ (2005) HN: 17,31,42 (N.E.2d) 2151 THE EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTHES: CLOAKING AND DISROBING THE SUPREME COURT IN CARRESE'S THE CLOAKING OF POWER, 30 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 1137, 1148+ (2004) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 2152 GAY AMERICAN "DEVIANCE:" USING INTERNATIONAL COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS TO ARGUE FOR A FREE SPEECH AND ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE APPROACH TO FURTHERING GAY MARRIAGE IN THE UNITED STATES, 26 Wis. Int'l L.J. 1, 85+ (2008) 2153 REDEFINING MARRIAGE: HOW THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE HAS CHANGED TO MAKE ROOM FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES, 27 Wis. J.L. Gender & Soc'y 305, 329+ (2012) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2154 INTERSTATE MARRIAGE RECOGNITION AND THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL, 25 Wis. J.L. Gender & Soc'y 1, 34 (2010) 2155 CONTROLLING FOR KIN: GHOSTS IN THE POSTMODERN FAMILY, 25 Wis. J.L. Gender & Soc'y 73, 136 (2010) 2156 DOMA AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMING OUT OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 24 Wis. J.L. Gender & Soc'y 145, 203+ (2009) 2157 THE POLITICS OF CARE, 23 Wis. J.L. Gender & Soc'y 169, 199 (2008) 2158 EMPIRICAL STUDIES OF LAW AND SOCIAL CHANGE: WHAT IS THE FIELD? WHAT ARE THE QUESTIONS?, 2013 Wis. L. Rev. 171, 193+ (2013) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 2159 LOVING AND THE LEGACY OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES, 2007 Wis. L. Rev. 239, 281 (2007) 2160 QUEER AS BLACK FOLK?, 2007 Wis. L. Rev. 379, 407 (2007) 2161 THE BAIT-AND-SWITCH IN DIRECT DEMOCRACY, 2006 Wis. L. Rev. 17, 73+ (2006) 2162 WISCONSIN CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO DEFINE MARRIAGE: THE LEGAL CONTEXT, 78-MAR Wis. Law. 16, 18+ (2005) HN: 32,33,34 (N.E.2d)
2163 LET'S TALK ABOUT SEX HONESTLY: WHY FEDERAL ABSTINENCEONLY-UNTIL-MARRIAGE EDUCATION PROGRAMS DISCRIMINATE AGAINST GIRLS, ARE BAD PUBLIC POLICY, AND SHOULD BE OVERTURNED, 21 Wis. Women's L.J. 291, 322+ (2006) HN: 11 (N.E.2d) 2164 MY TWO MOMS: CALIFORNIA'S SUPREME COURT DECISION IN K.M. V. E.G. AND WHY GAY MARRIAGE OFFERS THE BEST PROTECTION FOR SAME-SEX FAMILIES, 21 Wis. Women's L.J. 111, 131+ (2006) 2165 THE PRACTICE OF MARRIAGE, 20 Wis. Women's L.J. 189, 216+ (2005) HN: 15,31,42 (N.E.2d) 2166 BOOB LAWS: AN ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL DEVIANCE WITHIN GENDER, FAMILIES, OR THE HOME (ETUDES 2), 33 Women's Rts. L. Rep. 197, 207+ (2012) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2167 CONSTITUTING STATUS: AN ANALYSIS OF THE OPERATION OF STATUS IN PERRY V. SCHWARZENEGGER, 33 Women's Rts. L. Rep. 58, 81+ (2011) HN: 2,34,38 (N.E.2d) 2168 WHAT BEST TO PROTECT TRANSSEXUALS FROM DISCRIMINATION: USING CURRENT LEGISLATION OR ADOPTING A NEW JUDICIAL FRAMEWORK, 32 Women's Rts. L. Rep. 283, 323+ (2011) HN: 20,23,42 (N.E.2d) 2169 REVISITING THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND WORK OPPORTUNITY RECONCILIATION ACT AND CALLING FOR EQUALITY: PROBLEMATIC MORAL REGULATIONS AND THE CHANGING LEGAL STATUS OF LGBT FAMILIES IN A NEW OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, 31 Women's Rts. L. Rep. 104, 146+ (2009) 2170 SOME PENETRATING OBSERVATIONS ON THE FIFTH ANNIVERSARY OF LAWRENCE V. TEXAS: PRIVACY, DOMINANCE, AND SUBSTANTIVE EQUALITY THEORY, 30 Women's Rts. L. Rep. 442, 478+ (2009) 2171 ENGAGING THE ODD COUPLE: SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND EVANGELICALISM IN THE PUBLIC SQUARE, 30 Women's Rts. L. Rep. 255, 287 (2009) 2172 PLACING SECOND-PARENT ADOPTION ALONG THE "RATIONAL CONTINUUM" OF CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED FAMILY RIGHTS, 30 Women's Rts. L. Rep. 1, 41 (2008) 2173 THE RIGHT TO CONTRACT: USE OF DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP AS A STRATEGIC ALTERNATIVE TO THE RIGHT TO MARRY SAME-SEX PARTNERS, 28 Women's Rts. L. Rep. 145, 162 (2007) 2174 "I JUST CAN'T HANDLE IT": THE CASE OF HERNANDEZ V. ROBLES, 28 Women's Rts. L. Rep. 61, 72+ (2007) 2175 THE SEPTEMBER 11 RELIEF EFFORTS AND SURVIVING SAME-SEX PARTNERS: REFLECTIONS ON RELATIONSHIPS IN THE ABSENCE OF UNIFORM LEGAL RECOGNITION, 26 Women's Rts. L. Rep. 79, 96+ (2005) HN: 34 (N.E.2d)
2176 GAY RIGHTS IN WYOMING: A REVIEW OF FEDERAL AND STATE LAW, 11 Wyo. L. Rev. 125, 163 (2011) 2177 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - STRIKING DOWN ANTI-SODOMY LAWS: A BAD WAY TO REACH A GOOD DECISION? LAWRENCE V. TEXAS, 123 S. CT. 2472 (2003)., 4 Wyo. L. Rev. 795, 825 (2004) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 2178 PUBLIC POLICING OF INTIMATE AGREEMENTS, 25 Yale J.L. & Feminism 159, 215 (2013) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 2179 THE NEUTERED PARENT, 24 Yale J.L. & Feminism 1, 59 (2012) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2180 GENDER RULES, 22 Yale J.L. & Feminism 133, 191 (2010) 2181 LIKE FATHER, LIKE SON: HOMOSEXUALITY, PARENTHOOD, AND THE GENDER OF HOMOPHOBIA, 20 Yale J.L. & Feminism 257, 355+ (2009) HN: 31,34 (N.E.2d) 2182 SOUTH AFRICA'S WEDDING JITTERS: CONSOLIDATION, ABOLITION, OR PROLIFERATION?, 18 Yale J.L. & Feminism 497, 521 (2006) 2183 DO SAME-SEX COUPLES HAVE A RIGHT TO MARRY? THE STATE OF THE CONVERSATION TODAY, 17 Yale J.L. & Feminism 65, 69 (2005) 2184 LESBIAN LOVE STORIES: HOW WE WON EQUAL MARRIAGE IN CANADA, 17 Yale J.L. & Feminism 99, 131 (2005) 2185 RACE, SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, AND WHITE PRIVILEGE: THE PROBLEM WITH CIVIL RIGHTS ANALOGIES, 17 Yale J.L. & Feminism 133, 137 (2005) 2186 TYRANNY, FEDERALISM, AND THE FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT, 17 Yale J.L. & Feminism 221, 265+ (2005) 2187 WINNING MARRIAGE EQUALITY: LESSONS FROM COURT, 17 Yale J.L. & Feminism 297, 308+ (2005) 2188 WHAT IS FAMILY LAW?: A GENEALOGYPART II, 23 Yale J.L. & Human. 189, 293+ (2011) HN: 2,33,34 (N.E.2d) 2189 MARRIAGE AS A MESSAGE: SAME-SEX COUPLES AND THE RHETORIC OF ACCIDENTAL PROCREATION, 21 Yale J.L. & Human. 1, 35+ (2009) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2190 FAITH ACCOMPLI?: USING NONPROFIT LAW TO PROTECT SOCIAL SERVICES WHEN FAITH-BASED PROVIDERS CLOSE, 25 Yale L. & Pol'y Rev. 177, 216+ (2006) 2191 CREATED IN ITS IMAGE: THE RACE ANALOGY, GAY IDENTITY, AND GAY LITIGATION IN THE 1950S-1970S, 119 Yale L.J. 316, 372 (2009) 2192 UNPACKING THE HOUSEHOLD: INFORMAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AROUND THE HEARTH, 116 Yale L.J. 226, 328 (2006) 2193 THE CORE OF THE CASE AGAINST JUDICIAL REVIEW, 115 Yale L.J. 1346, 1406+ (2006) 2194 IMMORAL PURPOSES: MARRIAGE AND THE GENUS OF ILLICIT SEX, 115 Yale L.J. 756, 812+ (2006) HN: 34 (N.E.2d)
2195 WHY (AND WHEN) CITIES HAVE A STAKE IN ENFORCING THE CONSTITUTION, 115 Yale L.J. 2218, 2253 (2006) 2196 OF PROPERTY AND FEDERALISM, 115 Yale L.J. 72, 115+ (2005) HN: 15 (N.E.2d) 2197 DIVORCING MARRIAGE FROM PROCREATION, 114 Yale L.J. 1989, 1989+ (2005) HN: 32,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2198 PLURALISM AND DISTRUST: HOW COURTS CAN SUPPORT DEMOCRACY BY LOWERING THE STAKES OF POLITICS, 114 Yale L.J. 1279, 1328 (2005) 2199 WINDSOR'S RIGHT TO MARRY, 123 Yale L.J. Online 219, 245+ (2013) HN: 33,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2200 LAWRENCE MEETS LIBEL: SQUARING CONSTITUTIONAL NORMS WITH SEXUAL-ORIENTATION DEFAMATION, 122 Yale L.J. Online 125, 140 (2012) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 2201 A Practical Guide to Divorce in Rhode Island s 20.2, ENFORCEMENT OF COHABITATION AGREEMENTS (2009) 2202 ANN.2005 ATLA - Convention Reference Material 1873, SAME SEX MARRIAGE-SAME SEX DIVORCE-SAME SEX PARENTING-THE SUBSTANTIVE EQUALITY ARGUMENT (2005) 2203 091312 American Bankruptcy Institute 175, CONCURRENT SESSION: Consumer Track: Impact of Bankruptcy on the Respective Rights of Husbands and Wives and Significant Others (2012) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 2204 071212 American Bankruptcy Institute 627, The Right to Marry versus the Right to Bankruptcy Relief The Meaning of the Word "Spouse" for Means Testing Purposes: Some Considerations (2012) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 2205 STATE LAW CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS: ESTATE AND GIFT TAX DEVELOPMENTS, ESTATE TAX PROBLEMS WHEN THE STATE EXEMPTION IS LESS THAN THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX EXEMPTION, PORTABILITY, DECANTING, ASSET PROTECTION, TOTAL RETURN LEGISLA, SU025 American Law Institute-American Bar Association 103 (2012) HN: 2,6 (N.E.2d) 2206 ESTATE PLANNING FOR UNMARRIED ADULTS, ST042 American Law Institute-American Bar Association 575 (2012) 2207 PLANNING FOR NONTRADITIONAL COUPLES, SS043 American Law Institute-American Bar Association 859 (2011) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2208 ESTATE PLANNING FOR THE UNMARRIED ADULT, SS002 American Law Institute-American Bar Association 275 (2011) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 2209 ESTATE PLANNING FOR THE UNMARRIED ADULT, SR042 American Law Institute-American Bar Association 567 (2010) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 2210 SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, SR013 American Law Institute-American Bar Association 467 (2009)
2211 HOW DO I LOVE THEE? LET ME DOCUMENT THE WAYS: A FRESH LOOK AT PRE- AND POST-NUPTIAL AGREEMENTS, SM022 American Law Institute-American Bar Association 429 (2006) 2212 ESTATE PLANNING FOR THE UNMARRIED COUPLE, SK093 American Law Institute-American Bar Association 1285+ (2005) 2213 HIPPA, COBRA, AND OTHER WELFARE BENEFIT DEVELOPMENTS, SK064 American Law Institute-American Bar Association 817 (2005) 2214 THE CONTINUING EROSION, SK089 American Law Institute-American Bar Association 287 (2005) 2215 MARRIED IN MASSACHUSETTS: NOW WHAT?, SK020 American Law Institute-American Bar Association 279 (2004) 2216 ESTATE PLANNING FOR SAME SEX COUPLES - 2004, SK020 American Law Institute-American Bar Association 311 (2004) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 2217 RETIREMENT EQUITY ACT, SK012 American Law Institute-American Bar Association 97 (2004) 2218 THE IMPACT ON ESTATES AND TRUSTS OF THE NEW DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP ENACTMENTS, SK004 American Law Institute-American Bar Association 133 (2004) 2219 DOMESTIC PARTNER LIFE AND ESTATE PLANNING, SJ060 American Law Institute-American Bar Association 213 (2004) 2220 40 NO 5 Criminal Law Bulletin ART 1, The Limits of the Judicial Reform of Prisons: What Works; What Does Not (2010) 2221 CURRENT TRENDS IN SECOND-PARENT ADOPTIONS, 17 NO. 9 Divorce Litigation 141+ (2005) 2222 SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE JURISDICTION, 16 NO. 6 Divorce Litigation 96+ (2004) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 2223 DOMESTIC PARTNER BENEFITS, 16 Employer's Handbook: Complying with IRS Employee Benefits Rules Newsletter 5+ (2005) 2224 SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: IMPLICATIONS FOR PARTNERS' EMPLOYERS (2012) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2225 EMPLOYEES IN STATES THAT RECOGNIZE SAME-SEX MARRIAGES COULD DOUBLE THEIR FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE BENEFITS, 12 NO. 6 Family and Medical Leave Handbook Newsletter 7+ (2004) 2226 6/24/2004 Federal Taxes Weekly Alert Art. 4, FEDERAL LAW DENIES JOINT FILING FOR LEGALLY MARRIED SAME-SEX COUPLES (2004) HN: 17 (N.E.2d) 2227 ELI Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education Materials 12-1, SAME-SEX SEXUAL HARASSMENT, SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION, AND GENDER IDENTITY DISCRIMINATION (2013) 2228 BPMI Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education Materials 4-1, THE PROBATE AND ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES IN MASSACHUSETTS (2013) HN:
11 (N.E.2d) 2229 PISC Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education Materials 5-1, MASSACHUSETTS CASE LAW (2013) 2230 CROCII Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education Materials 32-1, HISTORICAL REVIEW OF THE RIGHTS OF HUSBAND AND WIFE IN EACH OTHER'S PROPERTY (2013) 2231 FIDLIT Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education Materials 12-1, PARENTAGE (2013) HN: 2,34 (N.E.2d) 2232 MFLSC Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education Materials 2-1, PRACTICE GUIDES (2013) 2233 MFLSC Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education Materials 3-1, SELECTED MASSACHUSETTS LAWS AND REGULATIONS (2013) HN: 41,42 (N.E.2d) 2234 MFLSC Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education Materials 9-1, CASE DIGEST (2013) HN: 38 (N.E.2d) 2235 WT Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education Materials 34-1, DEFINITIONS IN TRUSTS (2012) HN: 4 (N.E.2d) 2236 PIC Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education Materials 4-1, THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE (2012) 2237 DIAF Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education Materials A-1, ALPHABETICAL LIST OF SELECTED REFERENCES TO TOPICS IN DAMAGES (2012) HN: 11 (N.E.2d) 2238 RSCH Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education Materials 1-1, THE MASSACHUSETTS CONSTITUTION AND STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT (2012) 2239 EPAII Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education Materials 16-1, Homestead Protection (2012) 2240 EPAIII Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education Materials 35-1, TAX CONSEQUENCES OF OWNING AND TRANSFERRING THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE (2012) 2241 MDLPMI Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education Materials 8-1, DIVISION OF ESTATE (2012) 2242 MDLPMIII Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education Materials 22-1, TAX CONSIDERATIONS (2012) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 2243 MDLPMIII Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education Materials 24-1, HEALTH INSURANCE (2012) HN: 2,34 (N.E.2d) 2244 MDLPMIII Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education Materials 27-1, SAMESEX MARRIAGE, DIVORCE, AND ESTATE PLANNING ISSUES (2012) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2245 EPII Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education Materials 12-1, MARITAL AGREEMENTS (2011) 2246 EPII Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education Materials 15-1, ESTATE
PLANNING FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES: SELECTED ISSUES (2011) 2247 TORTI Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education Materials 5-1, WRONGFUL DEATH CLAIMS (2011) 2248 PLPI Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education Materials 12-1, EQUITY ACTIONS FILED BY DE FACTO PARENTS (2009) 2249 PLPI Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education Materials 4-1, CHAPTER 209C BASICS-FROM COMMENCEMENT OF AN ACTION TO JUDGMENT (2009) 2250 UUTR Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education Materials 10-1, TRUST DISTRIBUTION ISSUES (2009) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 2251 DLPFII Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education Materials 25-1, SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE (2009) 2252 ELI Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education Materials S-12-1, SAME-SEX SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION (2008) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 2253 EMPDI Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education Materials 193, SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION (2008) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 2254 PAE Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education Materials 1, THE PROBATE AND ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES IN MASSACHUSETTS THE PROBATE AND ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES IN MASSACHUSETTS (2006) HN: 11 (N.E.2d) 2255 NTFAM Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education Materials 1, PLANNING AND DRAFTING LEGAL INSTRUMENTS FOR NONTRADITIONAL FAMILIES (2006) HN: 12 (N.E.2d) 2256 NTFAM Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education Materials 125, SAME-SEX COPARENT ADOPTIONS (2006) 2257 NTFAM Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education Materials 181, DISSOLUTION OF DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGES (2006) HN: 31,41 (N.E.2d) 2258 NTFAM Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education Materials 369, WILL MARRIAGE BE AN OPTION? (2006) HN: 11,36,42 (N.E.2d) 2259 HOW TO MAKE DIVERSITY A PROFITABLE PROPOSITION IN YOUR PRACTICE, 2009 NAELA Symposium Conference Materials 15-1 (2009) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 2260 RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AND ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN COUNSELING SAME SEX COUPLES, 2005 NAELA Symposium Conference Materials 15-1+ (2005) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2261 UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. EDITH SCHLAIN WINDSOR, IN HER CAPACITY AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF THEA CLARA SPYER, ET AL., 20131008P NYCBAR 117, 129+ (2013) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2262 CIVIL UNION EQUALITY, 20120625A NYCBAR 148, 168+ (2012) HN: 2,6,34 (N.E.2d)
2263 EQUAL ACCESS AND THE RIGHT TO MARRY, 20120625A NYCBAR 169, 243+ (2012) HN: 15,36 (N.E.2d) 2264 GILL V. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, DECISION (MAY 31, 2012), 20120625A NYCBAR 303, 337 (2012) 2265 KAREN GOLINSKI, PLAINTIFF, V. UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT AND JOHN BERRY, DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, DEFENDANTS., 20120625A NYCBAR 345, 372+ (2012) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2266 8/3/2004 RIA Estate Planners Alert Newsletter MASSACHUSETTS EXPLAINS ESTATE AND GIFT TAX IMPLICATIONS OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGES (2004) HN: 2,34 (N.E.2d) 2267 Constitutionality of Massachusetts Same-Sex Marriage Decision, 12-3-2004 United States Supreme Court Actions 5+ (2004) 2268 DOMA Precludes Same-Sex Couple From Filing Joint Petition, 09-1-04 West's Bankruptcy Newsletter 2 (2004) HN: 17 (N.E.2d) 2269 "THE CHILD IS NOT THE MERE CREATURE OF THE STATE:" CONTROVERSY OVER TEACHING ABOUT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS (FNa1), 232 Ed. Law Rep. 1, 17 (2008) Westlaw Journals (U.S.A.) 2270 4 West's Medical Malpractice Law Report 5, SAME-SEX PARTNER CAN'T CLAIM RETROACTIVE LOSS OF CONSORTIUM (2008) Court Documents Appellate Court Documents (U.S.A.) Appellate Petitions, Motions and Filings 2271 Hollingsworth v. Perry, 2012 WL 3864338, *1+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Aug 31, 2012) Brief of Indiana, Michigan, Virginia, Alaska, Arizona, Idaho and 9 Other States as Amici Curiae in Support of the Petition (NO. 12-144) " HN: 33,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2272 Hollingsworth v. Perry, 2012 WL 3864341, *1+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Aug 31, 2012) Brief of Amici Curiae National Association of Evangelicals; The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention; The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; The Lutheran ... (NO. 12-144) " HN: 32 (N.E.2d) 2273 Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States Dept. of Health and Human Services, 2012 WL 3643776, *1+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Aug 23, 2012) Brief in Opposition (NO. 12-97) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 2274 Brewer v. Diaz, 2012 WL 3229406, *1+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing)
(U.S. Aug 06, 2012) Brief of the States of Indiana, Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Virginia as Amici Curiae in Support of the Petition (NO. 12-23) " HN: 33,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2275 Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives v. Gill, 2012 WL 3158879, *1+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Aug 02, 2012) Brief of the States of Indiana, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia as Amici Curiae in Support ... (NO. 12-13) " HN: 33,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2276 Lallier v. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2012 WL 4060071, *1+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Jul 31, 2012) Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (NO. 12-310) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 2277 Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives v. Gill, 2012 WL 3027166, *1+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Jul 20, 2012) Response of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in Support of Certiorari (NO. 12-13, 12-15) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 2278 United States Dept. of Health and Human Services v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 2012 WL 2586937, *1+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Jul 03, 2012) Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (NO. 12-15) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 2279 Parker v. Hurley, 2008 WL 2607899, *2607899+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Jun 27, 2008) Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari (NO. 07-1368) 2280 Brookins v. Boston Zoning Com'n, 2007 WL 445284, *445284+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Feb 08, 2007) Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (NO. 06-1117) " HN: 20 (N.E.2d) 2281 Healy v. Spencer, 2007 WL 419290, *419290+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Feb 02, 2007) Brief of Amicus Curiae, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, in Support of Petitioner (NO. 06-8625) HN: 11 (N.E.2d) 2282 Largess v. Supreme Judicial Court for the State of Mas, 2004 WL 2418916, *2418916+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Oct 26, 2004) Respondent, Judith A. McCarthy's Opposition (NO. 04-420) HN: 31 (N.E.2d) 2283 Hunter v. Porter, 2004 WL 2296298, *2296298+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Sep 28, 2004) Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (NO. 04-483) HN: 15 (N.E.2d) 2284 Picciotto v. Gilleran, 2004 WL 2191022, *2191022+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Sep 27, 2004) Petition for Writ of Certiorari (NO. 04-444) HN: 31 (N.E.2d) 2285 Largess v. Supreme Judicial Court for the State of Mas, 2004 WL 2190497, *2190497+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Sep 23, 2004) Petition for Writ of Certiorari (NO. 04-420) " HN: 31 (N.E.2d)
2286 BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA and Connecticut Rivers Council, Boy Scouts of America, Petitioners, v. Nancy WYMAN, et al., Respondents., 2004 WL 267769, *267769+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Feb 05, 2004) Brief of Agudath Israel of America as Amicus Curiae in Support of the Petition (NO. 03-956) 2287 Marseno A. MARTINS, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES Attorney General, Respondent., 2006 WL 6105733, *6105733+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (2nd Cir. May 26, 2006) Brief for Petitioner Marseno A. Martins (NO. 05-6756) 2288 Karen L. STRAUSS, et al., Petitioners, v. Mark D. HORTON, as State Registrar of Vital Statistics, Etc., et al., Respondents;. Dennis HOLLINGSWORTH et al., Interveners., 2009 WL 407933, *1+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Cal. Jan 07, 2009) Corrected Reply in Support of Petition for Extraordinary Relief (NO. S168047) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 2289 In re MARRIAGE CASES., 2008 WL 2508636, *2508636+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Cal. May 28, 2008) Respondents' Answer to Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund's Petition for Rehearing (NO. S147999) 2290 In Re Marriage CASES., 2007 WL 4668726, *4668726 (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Cal. Oct 04, 2007) Application to File Brief of Amicus Curiae California Naacp; Brief of Amicus Curiae California Naacp in Support of Parties Challenging the Marriage Exclusion (NO. A110449, A110450, A110451, A110463, A110651, A110652, S147999) 2291 In re MARRIAGE CASES., 2006 WL 3887033, *3887033+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Cal. Dec 04, 2006) Answer to Petitions for Review (NO. S147999) 2292 Coordination Proceeding Special Title (Rule 1550(b)), Marriage Cases., 2006 WL 3887025, *3887025+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Cal. Dec 01, 2006) Answer of Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund Opposing Petitions for Review on Merits (NO. S147999) 2293 In re Marriage CASES Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4365 No. A 110450. Robin Tyler, et al., Petitioners and Respondents, v. The State of California, et al., Respondents and Appellants., 2006 WL 3522226, *3522226+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Cal. Nov 14, 2006) Petition for Review (NO. S147999) 2294 In re Marriage CASES Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4365 No. A110451. Lancy Woo, et al., Plaintiffs-Petitioners and Respondents, v. Bill Lockyer, et al., Defendants-Respondents and Appellants., 2006 WL 3522227, *3522227+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Cal. Nov 14, 2006) Petition for Review (NO. S147999) 2295 CAMPAIGN FOR CALIFORNIA FAMILIES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER, as Governor, etc., et al.; Defendants and Respondents, Equality California, Defendant, Intervener and Respondent., 2006 WL 3520723,
*3520723+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Cal. Apr 10, 2006) Reply to Answer to Petition for Review (NO. S141757) 2296 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, a charter city and county, Respondent, v. State of California, et al., Appellants., 2005 WL 2173184, *2173184+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Cal. Jul 08, 2005) City and County of San Francisco's Answer in Support of Petition to Transfer Appeal (NO. S135207) 2297 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, a charter city and county, Respondent, v. State of California, et al., Appellants., 2005 WL 2173428, *2173428 (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Cal. Jul 01, 2005) Petition to Transfer Appeals (NO. S135207) 2298 Lancy WOO and Christy Chung, et al., Respondents, v. Bill LOCKYER, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California, et al., Appellants., 2005 WL 2173429, *2173429 (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Cal. Jul 01, 2005) Petition to Transfer Appeals (NO. S135208) 2299 Robin TYLER, and individual, Diane Olson, an individual, Troy Perry, an individual, and Phillip De Blieck, an individual, Respondents, v. THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a Political Body acting through its RegistrarRecorder/County Clerk, The State of California, a political body acting in its own right and through the State Registrar, and DOES I through 100, inclusive, Appellants., 2005 WL 2173430, *2173430 (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Cal. Jul 01, 2005) Petition to Transfer Appeals (NO. S135210) 2300 Pauline C. WATSON, in her Capacity as Trustee of the Trusts Under the Will of Ella E. Williams and Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Company, in its Sole Capacity as Trustee of the Trusts Under the Will of Ella E. Williams, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ruth W. BAKER, Defendant-Appellee, Judith B. Carpenter, in her Capacity as Temporary Executrix of the Estate of William T. Carpenter, Jr., Interested PartyAppellant, Pauline C. Watson, in her Capacity as Beneficiary of, 2004 WL 3455458, *3455458+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Mass. Aug 11, 2004) Appellee's Petition for Direct Appellate Review. (NO. SJC-09347) 2301 Sophie C. CURRIER on behalf of herself and on behalf of Lea M. GallienCurrier, Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. NATIONAL BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS, Defendant/Appellant., 2007 WL 7326910, *7326910 (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Mass.App.Ct. Oct 01, 2007) Brief of Plaintiffs/ Appellees in Opposition to Petition for Relief Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 211, | 3 (NO. 2007-P-1529) " 2302 State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph KVASNE, Defendant-Appellant., 2007 WL 2888052, *2888052 (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Ohio Jan 02, 2007) Memorandum in Response to Jurisdiction (NO. 2006-2217) 2303 State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel WAIN, Defendant-Appellant., 2006 WL 4822996, *4822996 (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Ohio Oct 23, 2006) Memorandum in Response to Jurisdiction (NO. 2006-1862) 2304 State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles DOUGLAS, Defendant-Appellant.,
2006 WL 4821885, *4821885 (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Ohio Jul 13, 2006) Memorandum in Response to Defendant-Appellant's Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction (NO. 2006-1292) 2305 State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frederick BURK, Defendant-Appellant., 2006 WL 4803524, *4803524 (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Ohio Mar 06, 2006) Memorandum in Response to Jurisdiction (NO. 2006-0336) 2306 In the Matter of the Marriage of J.B. and H.B., J. B., Petitioner, v. The State of Texas, Respondent., 2011 WL 8584393, *1+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Tex. Sep 06, 2011) Petitioner's Brief on the Merits (NO. 11-0024) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 2307 In the Matter of the Marriage of J.B. and H.B., J.B., Petitioner, v. The State of Texas, Respondent., 2011 WL 8584392, *1+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Tex. Feb 17, 2011) Petition for Review (NO. 11-0024) HN: 2,6 (N.E.2d) Appellate Briefs 2308 United States of America v. Windsor, 2013 WL 785632, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Mar 01, 2013) Brief of Amici Curiae Family and Child Welfare Law Professors Addressing the Merits and in Support of Respondents (NO. 12-307) " HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2309 United States of America v. Windsor, 2013 WL 785633, *1 (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Mar 01, 2013) Brief of Amici Curiae National Women's Law Center, Williams Institute Scholars of Sexual Orientation and Gender Law, and Women's Legal Groups in Support of Respondent Edith Schlain Windsor on the ... (NO. 12-307) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 2310 Hollingsworth v. Perry, 2013 WL 769311, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Feb 28, 2013) Brief of Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom, et al., as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent (NO. 12-144) " HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2311 Hollingsworth v. Perry, 2013 WL 769326, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Feb 28, 2013) Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Respondents (NO. 12-144) " HN: 33,34 (N.E.2d) 2312 Hollingsworth v. Perry, 2013 WL 769332, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Feb 28, 2013) Brief of the Cato Institute and Constitutional Accountability Center as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents (NO. 12-144) " HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 2313 Hollingsworth v. Perry, 2013 WL 795544, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Feb 28, 2013) Brief for Foreign and Comparative Law Experts Harold Hongju Koh, Sarah H. Cleveland, Laurence R. Helfer, and Ryan Goodman as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondents (NO. 12-144) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 2314 Hollingsworth v. Perry, 2013 WL 840014, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Feb 28, 2013) Brief of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Delaware, District Of Columbia, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Washington as Amici Curiae in Support of ... (NO.
12-144) " HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2315 Hollingsworth v. Perry, 2013 WL 860452, *1 (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Feb 28, 2013) Brief of Amici Curiae National Women'S Law Center, Williams Institute Scholars of Sexual Orientation and Gender Law, and Women's Legal Groups in Support of Respondents on the Merits (NO. 12-144) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 2316 Hollingsworth v. Perry, 2013 WL 871954, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Feb 28, 2013) Brief of Amici Curiae Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. and Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders in Support of Respondents (NO. 12-144) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 2317 Hollingsworth v. Perry, 2013 WL 871956, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Feb 28, 2013) Brief Amicus Curiae of the American Jewish Committee in Support of the Individual Respondents on the Merits (NO. 12-144, 12-307) HN: 7 (N.E.2d) 2318 Hollingsworth v. Perry, 2013 WL 4737187, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Feb 28, 2013) Brief Amicus Curiae of the American Jewish Committee in Support of the Individual Respondents on the Merits (NO. 12-144, 12-307) HN: 7 (N.E.2d) 2319 Hollingsworth v. Perry, 2013 WL 769323, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Feb 27, 2013) Brief of Amici Curiae Edward D. Stein, Joanna L. Grossman, Kerry Abrams, Holning Lau, Katharine B. Silbaugh and 32 Other Professors of Family Law and Constitutional Law in Support of Respondents (NO. 12-144) 2320 Hollingsworth v. Perry, 2013 WL 769329, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Feb 27, 2013) Brief for the State of California as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondents (NO. 12-144) " HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2321 Hollingsworth v. Perry, 2013 WL 823226, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Feb 27, 2013) Brief Amici Curiae of the American Humanist Association and American Atheists, Inc., American Ethical Union, The Center for Inquiry, Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, Secular ... (NO. 12-144) " HN: 15 (N.E.2d) 2322 United States of America v. Windsor, 2013 WL 823227, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Feb 27, 2013) Brief of 278 Employers and Organizations Representing Employers as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent Edith Schlain Windsor (Merits Brief) (NO. 12-307) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2323 Hollingsworth v. Perry, 2013 WL 662703, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Feb 21, 2013) Brief of Respondent City and County of San Francisco (NO. 12-144) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2324 Hollingsworth v. Perry, 2013 WL 367058, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jan 29, 2013) Brief of Amicus Curiae Patrick Henry College in Support of Petitioners (NO. 12-144) HN: 7 (N.E.2d) 2325 Hollingsworth v. Perry, 2013 WL 390989, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jan 29, 2013) Brief of Amici Liberty Counsel, Inc. and Campaign for Children and
Families In Support of Petitioners (NO. 12-144) 2326 United States of America v. Windsor, 2013 WL 390994, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jan 29, 2013) Brief of Amicus Curiae Liberty Counsel in Support of Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives (Merits Brief) (NO. 12-307) 2327 Hollingsworth v. Perry, 2013 WL 416198, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jan 29, 2013) Brief Addressing the Merits of the States of Indiana, Virginia, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, ... (NO. 12-144) " HN: 33,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2328 Hollingsworth v. Perry, 2013 WL 416199, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jan 29, 2013) Brief of Minnesota for Marriage as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners (NO. 12-144) HN: 41 (N.E.2d) 2329 Hollingsworth v. Perry, 2013 WL 416204, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jan 29, 2013) Brief Of Amicus Curiae Matthew B. O'Brien in Support of Hollingsworth and Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives Addressing the Merits and Supporting Reversal (NO. 12-144, 12-307) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 2330 United States v. Windsor, 2013 WL 416206, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jan 29, 2013) Brief Amici Curiae of National Association of Evangelicals; the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention; the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; the Lutheran ... (NO. 12-307) 2331 Hollingsworth v. Perry, 2013 WL 417722, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jan 29, 2013) Amicus Curiae Brief of Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance in Support of Petitioners and Supporting Reversal (NO. 12-144) " 2332 Hollingsworth v. Perry, 2013 WL 432943, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jan 29, 2013) Brief of Amicus Curiae Helen M. Alvare in Support of Hollingsworth and Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group Addressing the Merits and Supporting Reversal (NO. 12-144, 12-307) " HN: 2,33 (N.E.2d) 2333 Hollingsworth v. Perry, 2013 WL 1780812, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jan 29, 2013) Amicus Curiae Brief of Coalition for the Protection of Marriage in Support of Hollingsworth and Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group Addressing the Merits and Supporting Reversal (NO. 12-144, 12-307) " HN: 7,38 (N.E.2d) 2334 United States v. Windsor, 2013 WL 1780814, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jan 29, 2013) Brief Amicus Curiae of United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in Support of Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, Addressing the Merits, and Supporting Reversal (NO. 12-307) HN: 38 (N.E.2d) 2335 Hollingsworth v. Perry, 2013 WL 390990, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jan 28, 2013) Brief of Amici Curiae National Association of Evangelicals; the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention; the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; the Lutheran ... (NO. 12-144)
2336 Hollingsworth v. Perry, 2013 WL 439976, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jan 28, 2013) Brief Amicus Curiae of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty in Support of Hollingsworth and the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group Addressing the Merits (NO. 12-144, 12-307) HN: 2,6 (N.E.2d) 2337 Hollingsworth v. Perry, 2013 WL 1780811, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jan 28, 2013) Brief of the Lighted Candle Society Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners (NO. 12-144) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 2338 Hollingsworth v. Perry, 2013 WL 315229, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jan 25, 2013) Amici Curiae Brief of Scholars of History and Related Disciplines in Support of Petitioners (NO. 12-144) 2339 Hollingsworth v. Perry, 2013 WL 355754, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jan 25, 2013) Brief Amicus Curiae of United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in Support of Petitioners and Supporting Reversal (NO. 12-144) HN: 2,6,34 (N.E.2d) 2340 Hollingsworth v. Perry, 2013 WL 314462, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jan 24, 2013) Brief Amicus Curiae of the Family Research Council in Support of Petitioners Addressing the Merits and Supporting Reversal (NO. 12-144) " HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2341 United States of America v. Windsor, 2013 WL 315235, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jan 24, 2013) Brief Amicus Curiae of the Family Research Council in Support of Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group Addressing the Merits and Supporting Reversal (NO. 12-307) HN: 2,6,34 (N.E.2d) 2342 United States of America v. Windsor, 2013 WL 315236, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jan 24, 2013) Brief For Amici Curiae Law Professors in Support of Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives Addressing the Merits and Supporting Reversal (NO. 12-307) HN: 2,6,34 (N.E.2d) 2343 Silvano ORSI, Plaintiff -- Appellant, v. Falah Bin Zayed Bin Sultan ALNAHYAN, Defendant -- Appellee., 2013 WL 460420, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (1st Cir. Jan 30, 2013) Brief of Silvano Orsi Plaintiff -- Appellant (NO. 12-2400) 2344 Marie Dumorne ARMAND, (Appellant), v. HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL NETWORK, INC., Mortgage Electronic Registration Systmes, Inc., Gmac Mortgage LLC and Federal National Mortgage Association, (Appellees)., 2012 WL 5178109, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (1st Cir. Oct 10, 2012) Appellant Marie Dumorne Armand's Appellate Brief in Appeal of the Massachusetts Federal District Courts' Order Granting the Appellees Motion to Dismiss (NO. 12-1876) 2345 Oratai CULHANE, (Appellant), v. AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC, (Appellees)., 2012 WL 4322026, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (1st Cir. Sep 17, 2012) Plaintiffs' Oratai Culhane Appellate Brief in Appeal of the Massachusetts Federal District Court's Order Granting Summary Judgment (NO. 12-1285)
2346 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al., Defendants-Appellants. Dean Hara, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, Nancy Gill, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, Keith Toney; Albert Toney, III, Plaintiffs, v. Office of Personnel Management, et al., Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, Hillary Rodham Clinton, in her official capacity as United States Secretary of State, Defendant., 2011 WL 5517823, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (1st Cir. Nov 03, 2011) Brief of Amici Curiae Family and Child Welfare Law Professors in Support of Affirmance of the Judgment Below (NO. 10-2204, 10-2207, 10-2214) " HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2347 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES et al., Defendants-Appellants. Dean Hara, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, Nancy Gill et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Office of Personnel Management et al., Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees., 2011 WL 5833107, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (1st Cir. Nov 03, 2011) Brief of Members of the U.S. House of Representatives--Including Objecting Members of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, Representatives Nancy Pelosi and Steny H. Hoyer--As Amici Curiae in Support ... (NO. 10-2204, 10-2207, 10-2214) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2348 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al., Defendants-Appellants. Nancy Gill, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, Dean Hara, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. Office of Personnel Management, et al., Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees., 2011 WL 5323302, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (1st Cir. Oct 27, 2011) Brief for Plaintiff-Appellee Commonwealth of Massachusetts (NO. 10-2204, 10-2207, 10-2214) " HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2349 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al., DefendantsAppellants. Nancy Gill, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, Dean Hara, PlaintiffAppellee/Cross-Appellant, v. Office of Personnel Management, et al., Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees., 2011 WL 4539095, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (1st Cir. Sep 22, 2011) Brief for Intervenor-Appellant the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives (NO. 10-2204, 10-2207, 10-2214) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 2350 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al., Defendants-Appellants. Dean Hara, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, Nancy Gill, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, Keith Toney; Albert Toney, III, Plaintiffs, v. Office of Personnel Management, et al., Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, Hilary Rodham Clinton, in her official capacity as United States Secretary of State, Defendant., 2011 WL 970395, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (1st Cir. Feb 02, 2011) Brief Amicus Curiae of Agudath Israel of America. in Support of
Defendants-Appellants and in Support of Reversal (NO. 10-2204, 10-2207, 10-2214) 2351 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al., Defendants-Appellants. Dean Hara, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, Nancy Gill, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, Keith Toney; Albert Toney, III, Plaintiffs, v. Office of Personnel Management, et al., Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, Hilary Rodham Clinton, in her official capacity as United States Secretary of State, Defendant., 2011 WL 494358, *494358+ (Appellate Brief) (1st Cir. Jan 27, 2011) Brief of Amicus Curiae, Concerned Women for America, in Support of Defendants-Appellants and in Support of Reversal (NO. 10-2204, 10-2207, 10-2214) 2352 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al., Defendants-Appellants. Dean Hara, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, Nancy Gill, et al, Plaintiffs-Appellees, Keith Toney; Albert Toney, III, Plaintiffs, v. Office of Personnel Management, et al, Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees., 2011 WL 494360, *494360+ (Appellate Brief) (1st Cir. Jan 27, 2011) Brief of Amicus Curiae, Representative Lamar Smith in Support of DefendantsAppellants and Reversal (NO. 10-2204, 10-2207, 10-2214) 2353 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al., Defendants-Appellants. Dean Hara, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, Nancy Gill, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, Keith Toney; Albert Toney, III, Plaintiffs, v. Office of Personnel Management, et al., Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, Hilary Rodham Clinton, in her official capacity as United States Secretary of State, Defendant., 2011 WL 494349, *494349+ (Appellate Brief) (1st Cir. Jan 25, 2011) Brief of Amicus Curiae, American College of Pediatricians, in Support of Defendants-Appellants and in Support of Reversal (NO. 10-2204, 10-2207, 10-2214) 2354 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Plaintiff -- Appellee, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES; et. al., Defendants -- Appellants. Dean Hara, Plaintiff, Appellee/Cross-Appellant, Nancy Gill; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, keith Toney; Albert Toney, III, Plaintiffs, v. Office of Personnel Management, et al., Defendants, Appellants/Cross-Appellees, Dean Hara, Plaintiff, Appellee/Cross-Appellant, Nancy Gill; et al.,, 2011 WL 970394, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (1st Cir. Jan 19, 2011) Brief of Amicus Curiae George I. Goverman in Support of Federal Defendants (NO. 10-2204, 10-2207, 10-2214) 2355 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES DEP'T OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, et al., DefendantsAppellants. & Nancy Gill, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Office of Personnel Management, et al., Defendants-Appellants. & Dean Hara, Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, v. Office of Personnel Management, et al., Defendants-
Appellants, Cross-Appellees., 2011 WL 494346, *494346+ (Appellate Brief) (1st Cir. Jan 18, 2011) Brief of Amicus Curiae, the Family Research Council, in Support of Defendants-Appellants and in Support of Reversal in No. 10-2207 (NO. 10-2204, 10-2207, 10-2214) 2356 NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE, INC., and American Principles in Action, Inc., Plaintiff -- Appellants, v. Walter F. MCKEE, Andre G. Duchette, Michael P. Friedman, Francis C. Marsano, and Edward M. Youngblood, In Their Official Capacities as Members of the Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices; Mark Lawrence, Stephanie Anderson, Norman Croteau, Evert Fowle, R. Christopher Almy, Geoffrey Rushlau, Michael E. Povich, and Neal T. Adams, In, 2011 WL 2783570, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (1st Cir. 2011) Amicus Brief of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders in Support of Appellees to Affirm the District Court's Decision (NO. 11-1196) 2357 Wayne Blyth HEALY, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Luis SPENCER, RespondentAppellant., 2006 WL 4402539, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (1st Cir. May 05, 2006) Brief of Amicus Curiae, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, In Support of Petitioner-appellee, Wayne Healy (NO. 06-1269) HN: 11 (N.E.2d) 2358 James ALBRIGHT; Amrak Productions, Inc., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Andrew MORTON; Michael O'Mara; Michael O'Mara Books Limited, Defendants/ Appellees, St. Martin's Press, Inc.; Time, Inc., News Group Newspapers Ltd., Defendants., 2004 WL 5684130, *5684130+ (Appellate Brief) (1st Cir. Nov 22, 2004) Brief (NO. 2004-1449) " 2359 Robert P. LARGESS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT FOR THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS, et al, DefendantsAppellees., 2004 WL 5684165, *5684165+ (Appellate Brief) (1st Cir. May 28, 2004) Brief (NO. 2004-1621) " 2360 Robert P. LARGESS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT FOR THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS, et al, DefendantsAppellees., 2004 WL 5684166, *5684166+ (Appellate Brief) (1st Cir. May 28, 2004) Brief (NO. 2004-1621) " 2361 Robert P. LARGESS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT FOR THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS, et al, DefendantsAppellees., 2004 WL 5684164, *5684164+ (Appellate Brief) (1st Cir. May 27, 2004) Brief (NO. 2004-1621) " 2362 Robert P. LARGESS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT FOR THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS, et al, DefendantsAppellees., 2004 WL 5663396, *5663396+ (Appellate Brief) (1st Cir. May 21, 2004) Appellants' Initial Brief (NO. 04-1621) " HN: 15,31,36 (N.E.2d) 2363 Local Union No. 12004, UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, Stephen T. Bradley; Gary S. Buma; Paul. P. Edmonds; Charles H. Grant, Jr.; Raymond L. Lahair, Jr.; Charles Mcneil; Ronald F. Mezzano; Thomas Nugent; and Thomas St. Pierre, Plaintiffs-Appellants/Crossappellees, v. THE COMMONWEALTH OF
MASSACHUSETTS, Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination; Dorca Gomez, Commissioner for the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, Walter J. Sullivan Jr, Commissioner, 2004 WL 5661185, *5661185+ (Appellate Brief) (1st Cir. Mar 01, 2004) Brief of Amicus Cukiae Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders and Massachusetts Lesbian & Gay Bar Association (NO. 03-2352, 03-2551) " 2364 Gail M. NORTON, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Russell L. HOYT, Defendant/ Appellee., 2003 WL 25796841, *25796841+ (Appellate Brief) (1st Cir. 2003) Brief of Plaintiff-Appellant Gail R. Norton (NO. 03-2281) HN: 31 (N.E.2d) 2365 Edith Schlain WINDSOR, in her capacity as executor of the estate of Thea Clara Spyer, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DefendantAppellant, Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives, Intervenor-Defendant-Appellant., 2012 WL 4338882, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (2nd Cir. Sep 12, 2012) Brief of Members of the U.S. House of Representatives--Including Objecting Members of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, Representatives Nancy Pelosi and Steny H. Hoyer--as Amici Curiae in Support ... (NO. 12-2335, 12-2435) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2366 Edith Schlain WINDSOR, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant, BIPARTISAN LEGAL ADVISORY GROUP OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Intervenor-Defendant-Appellant., 2012 WL 4201890, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (2nd Cir. Sep 07, 2012) Brief of Members of the U.S. House of Representatives-Including Objecting Members of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, Representatives Nancy Pelosi and Steny H. Hoyer-As Amici Curiae in Support of ... (NO. 12-2335, 12-2435) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2367 Edith Schlain WINDSOR, in her Official capacity as Executor of the estate of Thea Clara Spyer, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BIPARTISAN LEGAL ADVISORY GROUP OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Intervenor-Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DefendantAppellant., 2012 WL 4201898, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (2nd Cir. Sep 07, 2012) Brief of Amici Curiae Professors of Family and Child Welfare Law Susan Appleton, Carlos Ball, Brian Bix, Cynthia Bowman, Naomi Cahn, Marion Crain, Nancy Dowd, Joanna L. Grossman, Joan Heifetz ... (NO. 12-2335-CV(L), 12-2435-CV) " HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2368 Edith Schlain WINDSOR, In Her Official Capacity as Executor of the Estate of Thea Clara Spyer, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BIPARTISAN LEGAL ADVISORY GROUP OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Defendant-Appellant, United States of America, Intervenor-Defendant-Appellant., 2012 WL 3647726, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (2nd Cir. Aug 17, 2012) Brief of the States of Indiana, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and Virginia as Amici Curiae in Support of ... (NO. 12-2335, 12-2435) " HN: 2,33,34 (N.E.2d)
2369 Edith Schlain WINDSOR, In Her Official Capacity as Executor of the Estate of Thea Clara Spyer, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BIPARTISAN LEGAL ADVISORY GROUP OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, IntervenorDefendant-Appellant, United States of America, Defendant-Appellant., 2012 WL 3647729, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (2nd Cir. Aug 17, 2012) Brief of the States of Indiana, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and Virginia as Amici Curiae in Support of ... (NO. 12-2335, 12-2435) " HN: 2,33,34 (N.E.2d) 2370 Edith Schlain WINDSOR, in her capacity as Executor of the estate of Thea Clara Spyer, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DefendantsAppellants, The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives, Respondent., 2012 WL 3647721, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (2nd Cir. Aug 15, 2012) Brief of Amicus Curiae, National Organization for Marriage, in Support of Intervenor-Appellant Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives (NO. 12-2335, 12-2435) 2371 Edith Schlain WINDSOR, in her capacity as Executor of the estate of THEA Clara Spyer, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellant, The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives, Intervenor-Defendant-Appellant., 2012 WL 3647730, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (2nd Cir. Aug 15, 2012) Brief of Amicus Curiae, National Organization for Marriage, in Support of Intervenor-Appellant Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives (NO. 12-2335, 12-2435) 2372 UNION SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, v. Andrea BLAKELEY, Tracy Cochran And Thomas Blakeley Petitioners- Appellants, v. Sondra Billet Respondent - Appellee., 2010 WL 7325164, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (6th Cir. Feb 12, 2010) Brief of the Appellants (NO. 09-4368) 2373 CITIZENS FOR EQUAL PROTECTION, INC., a non-profit organization incorporated under the laws of Nebraska; Nebraska Advocates for Justice and Equality, Inc., a non-profit organization incorporated under the laws of Nebraska; and Aclu Nebraska, a non-profit organization incorporated under the laws of Nebraska, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Attorney General Jon BRUNING, in his official capacity, and Governor Dave Heineman, in his official capacity, Defendant-Appellants., 2005 WL 3817986, *3817986+ (Appellate Brief) (8th Cir. Nov 09, 2005) Brief for Amici Curiae National Association of Social Workers and Nebraska Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers (NO. 05-2604) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 2374 Beverly SEVCIK, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Brian SANDOVAL, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, IntervenorDefendant-Appellee. Natasha N. Jackson, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Neil S. Abercrombie, Governor, State of Hawaii, Defendant-Appellant, Loretta J. Fuddy, Director, Department of Health, State of Hawaii, Defendant-Appellee, Hawaii
Family Forum, Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee., 2013 WL 5880759, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Oct 25, 2013) Brief of Amicus Curiae Naacp Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants and Reversal of the District Court Judgments (NO. 12-16995, 12-16998, 12-17668) " HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 2375 Beverly SEVCIK, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Brian SANDOVAL, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, IntervenorDefendant-Appellee. Natasha N. Jackson, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Neil S. Abercrombie, Governor, State of Hawai'i, Defendant-Appellant, Loretta J. Fuddy, Director, Department of Health, State of Hawai'i, Defendant-Appellee, Hawaii Family Forum, Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee., 2013 WL 5880761, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Oct 25, 2013) Brief of Amici Curiae in Support of Appellants on Behalf of National and Western States Women's Rights Organizations (NO. 12-16995, 12-16998, 12-17668) " HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2376 Beverly SEVCIK, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Brian SANDOVAL, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, IntervenorDefendant-Appellee. Natasha N. Jackson, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Neil S. Abercrombie, Governor, State of Hawai'i, Defendant-Appellant, Loretta J. Fuddy, Director, Department of Health, State of Hawai'i, Defendant-Appellee, Hawai'i Family Forum, Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee., 2013 WL 5880762, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Oct 25, 2013) Amicus Curiae Brief of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Nevada and the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Hawai'i (NO. 12-16995, 12-16998, 12-17668) " HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2377 Beverly SEVCIK, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Brian SANDOVAL, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, IntervenorDefendant-Appellee. Natasha N. Jackson, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Neil S. Abercrombie, Governor, State of Hawai'i, Defendant-Appellant, Loretta J. Fuddy, Director, Department of Health, State of Hawai'i, Defendant-Appellee, Hawai'i Family Forum, Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee., 2013 WL 5880763, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Oct 25, 2013) Amicus Curiae Brief of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Nevada and the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Hawai'i (NO. 12-16995, 12-16998, 12-17668) " HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2378 Kristin M. PERRY, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., Defendants, Proposition 8 Official Proponents Dennis Hollingsworth, et al., Defendants-Intervenors-Appellants., 2010 WL 4622576, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Oct 25, 2010) Brief of Amici Curiae ACLU Foundation of Northern California, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., and National Center for Lesbian Rights (NO. 10-16696) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 2379 Kristen M. PERRY, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., Defendants, Proposition 8 Official Proponents
Dennis Hollingsworth, et al., Defendants-Intervenors-Appellants., 2010 WL 4622549, *4622549 (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Oct 25, 2010) Brief of Amicus Curiae Constitutional Accountability Center in Support of PlaintiffsAppellees (NO. 10-16696) 2380 Kristin M. PERRY, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, City and County of San Francisco, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellee, v. Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., Defendants Proposition 8 Official Proponents Dennis Hollingsworth, et al., Defendants-Intervenors-Appellants., 2010 WL 4622552, *4622552+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Oct 25, 2010) Brief of Amici Curiae Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom (BALIF), et al. in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees Supporting Affirmance (NO. 10-16696) 2381 Kristin M. PERRY, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., Defendants, Dennis Hollingsworth, et al., Defendants-Intervenors-Appellants., 2010 WL 4622564, *4622564+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Oct 25, 2010) Brief of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees and in Support of Affirmance (NO. 10-16696) 2382 Kristen M. PERRY, et al, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor of the State of California, et al, Defendants, Dennis Hollingsworth, et al, Defendants-Intervenors-Appellants., 2010 WL 4622568, *4622568+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Oct 25, 2010) Brief of Amicus Curiae Naacp Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees and Affirmance of the District Court Judgment (NO. 10-16696) 2383 Kristin PERRY, et al., Plaintiff-Appellees, v. Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., Defendants, Dennis Hollingsworth, et al., Defendant-Intervenors-Appellants., 2010 WL 4622579, *4622579+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Oct 25, 2010) Amici Curiae Brief in Support of Plaintiff-Appellees by Asian American Justice Center, Asian Law Caucus, Asian American Institute, Asian Pacific American Legal Center, Asian Pacific American Women ... (NO. 10-16696) 2384 Kristin PERRY, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., Defendants, Dennis Hollingsworth, et al., Defendant-Intervenors-Appellants., 2010 WL 4075736, *4075736+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Sep 24, 2010) Proposed Amicus Brief in Support of Defendant-Intervenors-Appellants (NO. 10-16696) " HN: 31 (N.E.2d) 2385 Kristin M. PERRY, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER, in his official capacity as Governor of California, et al., Defendants, Dennis Hollingsworth, et al., Defendants-Intervenors-Appellants., 2010 WL 4075743, *4075743+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Sep 24, 2010) Brief of States of Indiana, Virginia, Louisiana, Michigan, Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Idaho, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, and Wyoming as Amici Curiae in Support of ... (NO. 10-16696) " HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 2386 Kristin PERRY, et al, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER, et
al, Defendants, Dennis Hollingsworth, et al, Defendant-Intervenors-Appellants., 2010 WL 4075746, *4075746+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Sep 24, 2010) Brief Amicus Curiae of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty in Support of Defendants-Intervenors-Appellants and in Support of Reversal (NO. 10-16696) 2387 Kristin PERRY, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., Defendants, Dennis Hollingsworth, et al., Defendant-Intervenors-Appellants., 2010 WL 4075753, *4075753+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Sep 24, 2010) Brief of Amicus Curiae American Civil Rights Union in Support of DefendantIntervenors-Appellants and Reversal (NO. 10-16696) " 2388 Kristin PERRY, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., Defendants, Dennis Hollingsworth, et al., Defendant-Intervenors-Appellants., 2010 WL 3762119, *3762119+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Sep 17, 2010) Defendant-Intervenors-Appellants' Opening Brief (NO. 10-16696) " 2389 Kristin M. PERRY, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., Defendants., 2010 WL 3762120, *3762120+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Sep 17, 2010) Movant-Appellants Opening Brief (NO. 10-16751) " 2390 Arthur Bruno SMELT and Christopher David Hammer, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COUNTY OF ORANGE, California, et al., Defendants-Appellees., 2005 WL 4121256, *4121256+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Oct 12, 2005) Appellee's Brief (NO. 05-56040) " HN: 31,32 (N.E.2d) 2391 Arthur Bruno SMELT, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COUNTY OF ORANGE, et al., Defendants-Appellees., 2005 WL 4121255, *4121255+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Oct 2005) Brief for Appellee United States (NO. 05-56040) " HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 2392 Arthur Bruno SMELT; Christopher David Hammer, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. COUNTY OF ORANGE, California, et al., Defendants - Appellees., 2005 WL 3227255, *3227255+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Aug 22, 2005) Appellants' Brief (NO. 05-56040) " HN: 31,32,33 (N.E.2d) 2393 Tyler Chase HARPER, A Minor, by and Through His Parents, Ron and Cheryl Harper, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. POWAY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et. al., Appellees-Defendants., 2005 WL 676793, *676793+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Feb 01, 2005) Appellant's Opening Brief (NO. 04-57037) 2394 ALASKA CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, Dan Carter and Al Incontro, Lin Davis and Maureen Longworth, Shirley Dean and Carla Timpone, Darla Madden and Karen Wood, Aimee Olejasz and Fabienne Peter-Contesse, Karen Sturnick and Elizabeth Andrews, Theresa Tavel and Karen Walter, Corin Whittemore and Gani Ruthellen, and Estra Bensussen and Carol Rose Gackowski, Appellants, v. State of Alaska, and Municipality of Anchorage, Appellees., 2006 WL 1497308, *1497308+ (Appellate Brief) (Alaska Jan 19, 2006) Supplemental Reply Brief of Appellants (NO. S-10459) 2395 THE ALASKA CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, et al., Appellants, v. State of
Alaska, and Municipality of Anchorage, Appellees., 2006 WL 1497307, *1497307+ (Appellate Brief) (Alaska Jan 05, 2006) Supplemental Brief of Appellee State of Alaska Regarding the Issue of Remedy (NO. S-10459) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 2396 Arizona TOGETHER, an unincorporated association; Kaitlin Meadows; Albert Lannon; Amalia Antonioli; Frank Montoya; AL Brezney; Maxine Piatt; Paul Knobbe; Teresa Hewitt; Glen Cromer; and Rebecca Miller, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Janice K. BREWER, in her official capacity as Secretary of State for the State of Arizona, Defendant-Appellee; Protect Marriage Arizona, an unincorporated association, Real Party in Interest-Appellee., 2006 WL 2923814, *2923814+ (Appellate Brief) (Ariz. Aug 18, 2006) Response Brief of Real Party in Interest/Appellee (NO. CV-06-0277-AP/EL) 2397 Arizona TOGETHER, an unincorporated Association; Kaitlin Meadows; Albert Lannon; Amalia Antonioli; Frank Montoya; Al Brezney; Maxine Piatt; Paul Knobbe; Teresa Hewitt; Glen Cromer; and Rebecca Miller, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Janice K. BREWER, in her official capacity as Secretary of State for the State of Arizona, Defendant-Appellee, Protect Marriage Arizona, an unincorporated association Real Party in Interest-Appellee., 2006 WL 3383361, *3383361+ (Appellate Brief) (Ariz. Aug 18, 2006) Response Brief of Real Party in Interest/Appellee (NO. CV-06-0277-AP/EL) HN: 38 (N.E.2d) 2398 Arizona TOGETHER, an unincorporated association; Kaitlin Meadows; Albert Lannon; Amalia Antonioli; Frank Montoya; AL Brezney; Maxine Piatt; Paul Knobbe; Teresa Hewitt; Glen Cromer; and Rebecca Miller, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Janice K. BREWER, in her official capacity as Secretary of State for the State of Arizona, Defendant-Appellee, Protect Marriage Arizona, an unincorporated association Real Party in Interest-Appellee., 2006 WL 2923810, *2923810+ (Appellate Brief) (Ariz. Aug 16, 2006) Opening Brief of Real Party in Interest/ Appellee (NO. CV-06-0277-AP/EL) 2399 Arizona TOGETHER, an unincorporated association, Kaitlin Meadows; Albert Lannon, Amalia Antonioli, Frank Montoya, Al Brezney, Maxine Piatt, Paul Knobbe; Teresa Hewitt, Glen Cromer, and Rebecca Miller, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Janice K. BREWER, in her official capacity as Secretary of State for the State of Arizona, Defendant-Appellee, Protect Marriage Arizona; an unincorporated association, Real Party in Interest-Appellee., 2006 WL 3383363, *3383363+ (Appellate Brief) (Ariz. Aug 16, 2006) Opening Brief Of Real Party In Interest/Appellee (NO. CV-06-0277-AP/EL) 2400 In re the Matter of: Thomas T. BEATIE, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Nancy J. BEATIE, Respondent/Appellee. Thomas T. BEATIE, Petitioner/ Appellee, v. Nancy J. BEATIE, Respondent/ Appellant., 2013 WL 4027834, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Ariz.App. Div. 1 Jul 23, 2013) Respondent/ Appellee-Appellant's Opening Brief (NO. 1CA-CV13-0209) " HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2401 Ronald A. MAY, Susan E. May, And Gayle Bradford, Petitioners, v. Charlie DANIELS, in his official capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Arkansas, Respondent, Jerry Cox and Chris Stewart, individually and on behalf of the
Arkansas Marriage Amendment Committee, Intervenors., 2004 WL 2669610, *2669610+ (Appellate Brief) (Ark. Sep 15, 2004) Addendum and Brief of Intervenors (NO. 04-895) 2402 Terry POTOCKI, Appellant, v. ST. EDWARD MERCY MEDICAL CENTER, Appellee/Cross-Appellant, Sisters of Mercy Health System, Appellee/ Cross-Appellant., 2004 WL 3237517, *3237517+ (Appellate Brief) (Ark.App. Aug 05, 2004) Brief of Appellees/Cross-Appellants St. Edward Mercy Medical Center and Sisters of Mercy Health System (NO. CA0400539) 2403 In re Marriage CASES Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4365., 2012 WL 707534, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal. 2012) Application to File Brief Amici Curiae; Brief Amici Curiae of Douglas W. Kmiec, Helen M. Alvare, George W. Dent, Jr., Stephen G. Calabresi; Steven B. Presser; and Lynn D. Wardle, Professors of Law in ... (NO. S147999) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 2404 Kristin M. PERRY et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, City And County Of San Francisco, Plaintiff, Intervenor and Respondent, v. Edmund G. BROWN, Jr., as Governor, etc. et al., Defendants, Dennis Hollingsworth et al., Defendants, Intervenors and Appellants., 2011 WL 2140967, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal. May 06, 2011) Application to File Amici Curiae Brief in Support of Respondents and Proposed Amici Curiae Brief of Jon B. Eisenberg and Professor Laurie L. Levenson (NO. S189476) 2405 Karen L. STRAUSS et al., Petitioners, v. Mark B. HORTON, as State Registrar of Vital Statistics, etc., et al., Respondents, Dennis Hollingsworth et al., Interveners; Robin Tyler et al., Petitioners, v. The State of California el al., Respondents, Dennis Hollingsworth et al., Interveners; City and County of San Francisco et al., Petitioners, v. Mark B. Horton, as State Registrar of Vital Statistics, etc., el al., Respondents, Dennis Hollingsworth et al., Interveners., 2009 WL 1226937, *1226937+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal. Jan 20, 2009) Application and Proposed Brief Amici Curiae of the California Catholic Conference, the Seventh-Day Adventist Church State Council, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and the Union of ... (NO. S168047, S168066, S168078) 2406 Karen L. STRAUSS, et al., Petitioners, v. Mark B. HORTON, as State Registrar of Vital Statistics, et al., Respondents; Dennis Hollingsworth, et al., Interveners., 2009 WL 491806, *491806+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal. Jan 16, 2009) Application for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief and Brief of Amici Curiae Professors of Family Law in Support of Petitioners (NO. S168047) " HN: 11 (N.E.2d) 2407 Karen L. STRAUSS el al., Petitioners, v. Mark B. HORTON et al., State Registrar of Vital Statistics, etc., Respondent; Dennis Hollingsworth et al., Intervenors. Robin Tyler, et al., Petitioners, v. State of California et al., Respondents; Dennis Hollingsworth et al., Intervenors. City and County of San Francisco et al., Petitioners, v. Mark B. Horton et al., as State Registrar of Vital Statistics, etc., Respondent; Dennis Hollingsworth et al., Intervenors., 2009 WL 393210, *393210+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal. Jan 15, 2009) Brief of Amici Curiae
in Support of Petitioners Filed on Behalf of California Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO National Federation of Federal Employees Screen Actors Guild Unite Here! Alameda Labor ... (NO. S168047, S168066, S168078) " HN: 31 (N.E.2d) 2408 Karen L. STRAUSS, et al., v. Mark B. HORTON, et al., 2009 WL 393214, *393214+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal. Jan 15, 2009) Brief of Amicus Curiae Jewish Family Service of Los Angeles in Support of Petitioners in the Proposition 8 Cases (NO. S168047) " 2409 Karen L. STRAUSS, et al., Petitioners, v. Mark D. HORTON, in his official capacity as State Registrar of Vital Statistics of the State of California and Director of the California Department of public health, et al., Respondents., 2009 WL 491808, *491808+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal. Jan 15, 2009) Brief of Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners Karen L. Strauss, et al. (NO. S168047) " 2410 Brian BENNETT, Xavier Barrera, Audrey Koh and Equality California, Petitioners, v. Debra BOWEN. in her official capacity as Secretary of State, Respondent;, INITIATIVE PROPONENTS DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, Gail J. Knight, Martin F. Gutierrez, Hak-shing William Tam, and Mark a. Jansson, Real parties in interst., 2008 WL 3992186, *3992186+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal. Jul 10, 2008) Petitioners' Reply to Preliminary Opposition of Real Parties In Interest and to Respondent Secretary of State's Preliminary Response to Petition for Extraordinary Relief, Including Writ of Mandate ... (NO. S164520) 2411 In re MARRIAGE CASES Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4365., 2007 WL 4632425, *4632425+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal. Nov 14, 2007) Respondents' Consolidated Answer to Amicus Curiae Briefs (NO. S147999) " 2412 In re MARRIAGE CASES., 2007 WL 3167051, *3167051 (Appellate Brief) (Cal. Oct 04, 2007) Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of the Parties Challenging the Marriage Exclusion (NO. S147999) 2413 In re MARRIAGE CASES., 2007 WL 3307690, *3307690+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal. Oct 04, 2007) Brief Amicus Curiae of the Council for Secular Humanism and the Center for Inquiry in Support of the City and County of San Francisco, Urging Reversal of the Decision of the Court of Appeals (NO. S147999) 2414 In re MARRIAGE CASES., 2007 WL 3307692, *3307692+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal. Oct 04, 2007) Brief in Support of Respondents Challenging the Marriage Exclusion by Amicus Curiae the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Foundation (NO. S147999) " 2415 In Re: MARRIAGE CASES., 2007 WL 3307699, *3307699+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal. Oct 04, 2007) Brief Amici Curiae of African-American Pastors in California in Support of Respondents (NO. S147999) " 2416 In re MARRIAGE CASES., 2007 WL 3307702, *3307702+ (Appellate Brief)
(Cal. Oct 04, 2007) Brief of Amici Curiae Equality Federation and Gay and Lesbian Advocates & Defender in Support of Respondents (Including Application for Leave to File) (NO. S147999) 2417 In re MARRIAGE CASES., 2007 WL 3307727, *3307727+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal. Oct 04, 2007) Amicus Curiae Brief of Professor William N. Eskridge, Jr. in Support of Parties Challenging the Marriage Exclusion (NO. S147999) 2418 In Re MARRIAGE CASES., 2007 WL 4632421, *4632421+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal. Oct 04, 2007) Application to File Amici Curiae Brief, and Amici Brief, of Pacific Justice Institute and Capitol Resource Institute, in Support of Petitioners Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund and ... (NO. S147999) 2419 In re MARRIAGE CASES., 2007 WL 4632423, *4632423+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal. Oct 04, 2007) Application for Leave to File Brief of Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents Challenging the Marriage Exclusion and (proposed) Amicus Brief (NO. S147999) HN: 15 (N.E.2d) 2420 In re MARRIAGE CASES., 2007 WL 2905415, *2905415+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal. Aug 31, 2007) Respondents' Consolidated Supplemental Reply Brief (NO. S147999) " HN: 33 (N.E.2d) 2421 In re MARRIAGE CASES. Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4365., 2007 WL 2733221, *2733221+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal. Aug 17, 2007) Respondents' Supplemental Brief (NO. S147999) " HN: 17 (N.E.2d) 2422 COORDINATION PROCEEDING SPECIAL TITLE (RULE 1550(B)). In Re Marriage Cases., 2007 WL 2733224, *2733224+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal. Aug 17, 2007) City and County of San Francisco's Supplemental Brief (NO. S147999) " HN: 15 (N.E.2d) 2423 In re MARRIAGE CASES., 2007 WL 2085971, *2085971+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal. Jun 20, 2007) Brief Amicus Curiae of the Knights of Columbus in Support of the State Defendants (NO. S147999) " HN: 32,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2424 In re MARRIAGE CASES., 2007 WL 2905411, *2905411+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal. Jun 14, 2007) Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund Answer to Petitioners' Opening Briefs On the Substantive Issues (NO. S147999) " HN: 33,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2425 In re MARRIAGE CASES., 2007 WL 2905412, *2905412+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal. Jun 14, 2007) Answer Brief of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and State Registrar of Vital Statistics Teresita Trinidad on the Merits (NO. S147999) 2426 In re MARRIAGE CASES., 2007 WL 2905413, *2905413+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal. Jun 14, 2007) Answer Brief of State of California and the Attorney General to Opening Briefs on the Merits (NO. S147999) " 2427 In re MARRIAGE CASES., 2007 WL 2085967, *2085967+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal. Jun 07, 2007) Answer Brief of Campaign for California Families on the
Merits (NO. S147999) " HN: 32 (N.E.2d) 2428 Coordination Proceeding Special Title (Rule 1550(b)) In Re Marriage Cases., 2007 WL 1335193, *1335193+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal. Apr 03, 2007) Petitioner City and County of San Francisco's Opening Brief on the Merits (NO. S147999) " HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 2429 Gregory CLINTON, et al., Plaintiffs-Petitioners, and Respondents, v. State of California, et al., Defendants-Respondents, and Appellants., 2007 WL 1335195, *1335195+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal. Apr 02, 2007) Opening Brief on the Merits (NO. S147999) 2430 B. Birgit KOEBKE, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. BERNARDO HEIGHTS COUNTRY CLUB, Defendant and Respondent., 2005 WL 760050, *760050+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal. Jan 10, 2005) Answer of Bernardo Heights Country Club to Amicus Brief of Bill Lockyer, Attorney General of the State of California Service on State Solicitor General Required by Civil Code |51.1 (NO. S124179) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 2431 Bill LOCKYER, Petitioner, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., Respondents. Barbara Lewis, et al, Petitioners, v. Nancy Alfaro, Respondent., 2004 WL 3256402, *3256402+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal. Dec 10, 2004) Respondents' Opposition Brief to Petitioners' Motion for Attorneys Fees Under CCP |1021.5 (NO. S122923) 2432 B. Birgit KOEBKE, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. BERNARDO HEIGHTS COUNTRY CLUB, Defendant and Respondent., 2004 WL 2110803, *2110803+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal. Jul 19, 2004) Appellants' Opening Brief on the Merits (NO. S124179) HN: 15 (N.E.2d) 2433 Robin TYLER, et al., Respondents, v. State of California, et al., Appellants., 2006 WL 937635, *937635+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal.App. 1 Dist. Feb 10, 2006) Respondent Intervenor's Answer to Amici Curiae Briefs (NO. A110450) " HN: 12 (N.E.2d) 2434 Lancy WOO, et al., Respondents, v. State of California, et al., Appellants., 2006 WL 937636, *937636+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal.App. 1 Dist. Feb 10, 2006) Respondents' Answer to Amici Curiae Briefs (NO. A110451) " HN: 12 (N.E.2d) 2435 CAMPAIGN FOR CALIFORNIA FAMILIES, et al., Appellants, v. Gavin NEWSOM, et al., Respondents., 2005 WL 3955028, *3955028+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal.App. 1 Dist. Dec 16, 2005) Respondent Intervenors' Answer Brief (NO. A110652) " HN: 31,34 (N.E.2d) 2436 Robin TYLER, et al., Respondents, v. State of California, et al., Appellants., 2005 WL 3967318, *3967318+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal.App. 1 Dist. Nov 21, 2005) Respondent Intervenor Equality California's Answer Brief (NO. A110450) " HN: 15,17 (N.E.2d) 2437 Lancy WOO, et al., Respondents, v. State of California, et al., Appellants., 2005 WL 3967323, *3967323+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal.App. 1 Dist. Nov 10, 2005) Respondents' Corrected Answering Brief (NO. A110451) " HN: 17
(N.E.2d) 2438 In re MARRIAGE CASES Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4365; City and County of San Francisco, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. State of California, Defendant/Appellant,, 2005 WL 3967315, *3967315+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal.App. 1 Dist. Nov 09, 2005) Respondent's Brief (NO. A110449) " 2439 Lancy WOO, et al., Respondents, v. State of California, et al., Appellants., 2005 WL 3967320, *3967320+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal.App. 1 Dist. Nov 09, 2005) Respondents' Answering Brief (NO. A110451) " HN: 17,36 (N.E.2d) 2440 Coordination Proceeding Special Title (Rule 1550(b)) Marriage Cases, Gregory Clinton, et al., Respondents, v. State of California, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, in his capacity as Governor of the State of California, a California resident, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Appellants., 2005 WL 3967325, *3967325+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal.App. 1 Dist. Nov 09, 2005) Respondents' Brief (NO. A110463) " HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 2441 Coordination Proceeding Special Title (Rulel550(b)) Marriage Cases, Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. City and County of San Francisco, et al, Defendants and Respondents, Del Martin, et al., Intervenor-Defendants/Respondents., 2005 WL 3955027, *3955027+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal.App. 1 Dist. Oct 21, 2005) Appellant Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund's Opening Brief (NO. A110651) " HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 2442 Coordination Proceeding Special Title (Rule 1550(b)) Marriage Cases, Gregory Clinton, et al., Respondents, v. State of California, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, in his capacity as Governor of the State of California, a California resident, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Appellants., 2005 WL 3263579, *3263579+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal.App. 1 Dist. Sep 20, 2005) Appellants' Opening Brief (NO. A110463) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 2443 CAMPAIGN FOR CALIFORNIA FAMILIES, Appellant, v. Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of California; and Kevin Shelley, in his official capacity as Secretary of State of the State of California, William J. Jefferds, in his official capacity as Director of General Services; Geoff Brandt, in his official capacity as acting state printer of the office of state publishing, and Equality California, Respondeats., 2005 WL 520049, *520049+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal.App. 3 Dist. Jan 17, 2005) Opening Brief of Appellant (NO. C048303) " HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 2444 In re the Petition for Invalidity of Marriage of: Ginger ELM-PICARD, Appellant/ Petitioner, v. Lynne ELM-PICARD, Appellee/Respondent., 2008 WL 4297495, *4297495+ (Appellate Brief) (Colo.App. Aug 18, 2008) Opening Brief (NO. 07CA2410) 2445 Elizabeth KERRIGAN, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC HEALTH, et al., Defendants-Appellees., 2007 WL 4725443, *4725443+ (Appellate Brief) (Conn. Apr 25, 2007) Brief Amicus Curiae of United Families Connecticut in Support of Defendants-Appellees (NO. 17716) " HN: 38 (N.E.2d)
2446 Elizabeth KERRIGAN, et al., Plaintiff-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC HEALTH, et al., Defendant-Appellees., 2007 WL 4725446, *4725446+ (Appellate Brief) (Conn. Apr 25, 2007) Brief Amici Curiae of James Q. Wilson et al., Legal and Family Scholars In Support of Defendant-appellees (NO. 17716) 2447 Elizabeth KERRIGAN, et al., v. COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC HEALTH, et al., 2007 WL 4725449, *4725449+ (Appellate Brief) (Conn. Apr 25, 2007) Brief of Connecticut Catholic Conference, Inc. As Amicus Curiae In Support of Defendant-Appellees (NO. 17716) " HN: 32,36 (N.E.2d) 2448 Elizabeth KERRIGAN, et al, v. COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC HEALTH, et al., 2007 WL 4725452, *4725452+ (Appellate Brief) (Conn. Apr 25, 2007) Brief of Family Research Council as Amicus Curiae (NO. 17716) " 2449 Elizabeth KERRIGAN, et al., v. COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC HEALTH, et al., 2007 WL 4725459, *4725459+ (Appellate Brief) (Conn. Apr 25, 2007) Brief Amicus Curiae of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty in Support of Defendants-Appellees (NO. 17716) 2450 Elizabeth KERRIGAN, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC HEALTH, et al., Defendants-Appellees., 2007 WL 4729865, *4729865+ (Appellate Brief) (Conn. Apr 25, 2007) Brief Amicus Curiae of the Family Institute of Connecticut In Support of the Defendants-Appellees (NO. 17716) 2451 Elizabeth KERRIGAN et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC HEALTH et al., Defendants-Appellees., 2007 WL 4725467, *4725467+ (Appellate Brief) (Conn. Apr 23, 2007) Brief of Amicus Curiae Alliance for Marriage in Support of Defendants-Appellees (NO. 17716) HN: 10,41 (N.E.2d) 2452 Elizabeth KERRIGAN et al., Plaintiff-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC HEALTH et al., Defendant-Appellees., 2007 WL 4725470, *4725470+ (Appellate Brief) (Conn. Feb 21, 2007) Brief of Defendant-Appellees With Appendix (NO. SC17716) " HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 2453 Elizabeth KERRIGAN, et al., v. COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC HEALTH, et al., 2007 WL 4725444, *4725444+ (Appellate Brief) (Conn. Jan 11, 2007) Brief of Amici Curiae (NO. 17716) " HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 2454 Elizabeth KERRIGAN, et al., v. COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC HEALTH, et al., 2007 WL 4725451, *4725451+ (Appellate Brief) (Conn. Jan 11, 2007) Joint Brief of Amici Curiae (I) Human Rights Campaign; (Ii) Human Rights Campaign Foundation; (Iii) Equal Justice Society; (Iv) National Center for Lesbian Rights; (V) National Gay and Lesbian Task ... (NO. 17716) " HN: 17 (N.E.2d) 2455 Elizabeth KERRIGAN, et al., v. COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC HEALTH, et al., 2006 WL 5247960, *5247960+ (Appellate Brief) (Conn. Dec 12, 2006) Brief of Amici Curiae with Appendix (NO. SC17716) " HN: 32,34 (N.E.2d) 2456 Elizabeth KERRIGAN, et al., v. COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC HEALTH, et
al., 2006 WL 5247529, *5247529+ (Appellate Brief) (Conn. Nov 22, 2006) Brief of the Plaintiffs-Appellants With Separate Appendix (NO. SC17716) " HN: 15 (N.E.2d) 2457 IOWA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, Respondent - Appellant., v. Heather Martin GARTNER and Melissa Gartner, individually and as next friends of Mackenzie Jean Gartner, a minor child, Petitioners - Appellees., 2012 WL 10008153, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Iowa Jun 25, 2012) Brief of Petitioners Appellees and Request for Oral Argument (NO. 12-0243) " HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2458 Katherine VARNUM, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. Timothy J. BRIEN, Polk County Recorder, Defendant/Appellant., 2008 WL 5156763, *5156763+ (Appellate Brief) (Iowa Jun 10, 2008) Final Amended Reply Brief of Defendant-Appellant (NO. 07-1499) " 2459 Katherine VARNUM, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. Timothy J. BRIEN, Polk County Recorder Defendant/Appellant., 2008 WL 5156762, *5156762+ (Appellate Brief) (Iowa Jun 02, 2008) Final Brief of Defendant-Appellant (NO. 07-1499) HN: 32 (N.E.2d) 2460 Katherine VARNUM, et al., Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. Timothy J. BRIEN, Polk County Recorder, Defendant - Appellant., 2008 WL 5156764, *5156764+ (Appellate Brief) (Iowa Jun 02, 2008) Final Reply Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellees (NO. 07-1499) " HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 2461 STATE OF KANSAS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Matthew R. LIMON, DefendantAppellant., 2004 WL 1958979, *1958979+ (Appellate Brief) (Kan. Aug 09, 2004) Brief of Amici Curiae (NO. 00-85898-S) 2462 Jane DOE and John Doe, Individually and as Parents and Next Friends of Doechild-1, Doechild-2, and Doechild-3, and the American Humanist Association, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ACTON-BOXBOROUGH REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants-Appellees., Daniel JOYCE and Ingrid Joyce, and the Knights of Columbus, Defendants/Intervenors-Appellees., 2013 WL 4737308, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Aug 20, 2013) Brief of Amicus Curiae Commonwealth of Massachusetts in Support of Defendants-Appellees (NO. SJC-11317) HN: 19 (N.E.2d) 2463 Gregory DIATCHENKO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THE SUFFOLK DISTRICT, et al., Respondents-Appellees. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Marquise BROW, Respondent-Appellee., 2013 WL 4737395, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Aug 19, 2013) Amicus Curiae Brief on Behalf of: (I) American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts; (II)Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Racial Justice at Harvard Law School; (III) Children's Law Center of ... (NO. SJC-11453, SJC-11454) " HN: 20,37 (N.E.2d) 2464 COMMONWEALTH, Appellee, v. Kevin KEO, Appellant., 2013 WL 4737304, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Aug 16, 2013) Amicus Brief for the Plymouth County District Attorney's Office (NO. SJC-10949) " HN: 39 (N.E.2d)
2465 Jane DOE and John Doe, individually and as parents and next friends of Doechild-1, Doechild-2, and Doechild-3, and the American Humanist Association, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ACTON-BOXBOROUGH REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, the Town of Acton Public Schools, and Dr. Stephen E. Mills, as Superintendent of Schools, Defendants-Appellees, Daniel Joyce and Ingrid Joyce, individually and as parents and next friends of D. Joyce and C. Joyce, and the Knights of Columbus, a, 2013 WL 6850789, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Aug 16, 2013) Brief of Amicus Curiae Center for Inquiry (NO. SJC11317) " HN: 21 (N.E.2d) 2466 COMMONWEALTH, Appellee, v. Marquise BROWN, Appellant., 2013 WL 6850800, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Aug 15, 2013) Amicus Brief for the Plymouth County District Attorney's Office (NO. SJC-11454) " HN: 39 (N.E.2d) 2467 TOWN OF HANOVER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NEW ENGLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS, Defendant - Appellant., 2013 WL 6051378, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Aug 01, 2013) Brief Amicus Curiae of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, The Conservation Law Foundation, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, and The Massachusetts Fair Wage Campaign in Support ... (NO. SJC-11396) 2468 Gregory DIATCHENKO, Appellee, v. DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THE SUFFOLK DISTRICT & OTHERS, Appellant., 2013 WL 4052439, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Jul 26, 2013) Amicus Brief for the Commonwealth (NO. SJC-11453) " HN: 39 (N.E.2d) 2469 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Appellee, v. Michael ROBERTSON, Defendant-Appellant., 2013 WL 5667078, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Jul 2013) Brief for the Commonwealth on Appeal from a Judgment of the Boston Municipal Court (NO. SJC-11353) " HN: 10 (N.E.2d) 2470 Jane DOE and John Doe, individually and as parents and next friends of Doechild-1, Doechild-2, and Doechild-3, and the American Humanist Association, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. ACTON-BOXBOROUGH REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, the Town of Acton Public Schools, and Dr. Stephen E. Mills, as Superintendent of Schools, Defendants/Appellees. Daniel JOYCE and Ingrid Joyce, individually and as parents and next friends of D. Joyce and C. Joyce, and the Knights of Columbus, a, 2013 WL 3858253, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Feb 22, 2013) Reply Brief of the Plaintiffs/Appellants, Jane Doe and John Doe, individually and as parents and next friends of Doechild-1, Doechild-2, and Doechild-3, and the American Humanist Association (NO. SJC-11317) " HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 2471 Jane DOE and John Doe, individually and as parents and next friends of Doechild-1, Doechild-2, and Doechild-3, and the American Humanist Association, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ACTON-BOXBOROUGH REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, the Town of Acton Public Schools, and Dr. Stephen E. Mills, as Superintendent of Schools, Defendants-Appellees, Daniel JOYCE and Ingrid Joyce, individually and as parents and next friends of D. Joyce and C.
Joyce, and the Knights of Columbus, a, 2013 WL 3858252, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Feb 11, 2013) Brief of the Defendants-Appellees Acton-Boxborough Regional School District, the Town of Acton Public Schools, and Dr. Stephen E. Mills, as Superintendent of Schools (NO. SJC11317) " HN: 27,39 (N.E.2d) 2472 JANE DOE AND JOHN DOE, individually and as parents and next friends of Doechild-1, Doechild-2, and Doechild-3, and the American Humanist Association, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ACTON-BOXBOROUGH REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, the Town of Acton Public Schools, and Dr.stephen E. Mills, as Superintendent of Schools, Defendants-Appellees, Daniel JOYCE and Ingrid Joyce, individually and parents and next friends of D. Joyce and C. Joyce, and the Knights of Columbus, a, 2013 WL 3858255, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Feb 11, 2013) Brief of the Defendants/Interveners-Appellees, Daniel Joyce and Ingrid Joyce, individually and as parents and next friends of D. Joyce and C Joyce, and the Knights of Columbus, a Connecticut ... (NO. SJC11317) " HN: 29 (N.E.2d) 2473 Jane DOE and John Doe, individually and as parents and next friends of Doechild-1, Doechild-2, and Doechild-3, and the American Humanist Association, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. ACTON-BOXBOROUGH REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, the Town of Action Public Schools, and Dr. Stephen E. Mills, as Superintendent of Schools, Defendants/Appellees, Daniel JOYCE and Ingrid Joyce, individually and as parents and next friends of D. Joyce and C. Joyce, and the Knights of Columbus, a, 2012 WL 8684858, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Nov 12, 2012) Brief of the Plaintiffs/Appellants, Jane Doe and John Doe, individually and as parents and next friends of Doechild-1, Doechild-2, and Doechild-3, and the American Humanist Association (NO. SJC-11317) " HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 2474 LIBERTARIAN ASSOCIATION OF MASSACHUSETTS and Libertarian National Committee, Inc., Appellants, v. William F. GALVIN, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Appellee., 2012 WL 5970981, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Feb 06, 2012) Reply Brief of Appellants Libertarian Association of Massachusetts and Libertarian National Committee, Inc. (NO. SJC-11109) " HN: 15 (N.E.2d) 2475 LIBERTARIAN ASSOCIATION OF MASSACHUSETTS and Libertarian National Committee, Inc., Appellants, v. William F. GALVIN, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Appellee., 2012 WL 278754, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Jan 06, 2012) Brief of Appellants Libertarian Association of Massachusetts and Libertarian National Committee, Inc. (NO. SJC-11109) " HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 2476 Amy E. HUNTER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miko ROSE, Defendant-Appellant., 2011 WL 8148459, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Oct 19, 2011) Reply Brief of Defendant-Appellant (NO. SJC-11010) 2477 Amy E. HUNTER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miko ROSE, Defendant-Appellant., 2011 WL 8148460, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Oct 05, 2011) Brief of
Plaintiff-Appellee (NO. SJC-11010) " HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2478 Amy E. HUNTER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miko ROSE, Defendant-Appellant., 2011 WL 8148461, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Oct 05, 2011) Brief Amicus Curiae of California Professors of Family Law in Support of PlaintiffAppellee Amy E. Hunter (NO. SJC-11010) " HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2479 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Appellee, v. Allissa PUGH, Defendant-Appellant., 2011 WL 5118364, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Sep 08, 2011) Brief Amicus Curiae of American Civil Liberties Union and American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts in Support of the DefendantAppellant (NO. SJC-10895) " HN: 20,21 (N.E.2d) 2480 Todd ELIA - WARNKEN, Plaintiff- Appellant, v. Richard ELIA, DefendantAppellee., 2011 WL 7640101, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Aug 02, 2011) Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellant Todd Elia-Warnken (NO. SJC-11023) " HN: 1,3,4 (N.E.2d) 2481 Todd ELIA-WARNKEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard ELIA, DefendantAppellee., 2011 WL 7640102, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Jun 22, 2011) Brief of Defendant-Appellee Richard Elia (NO. SJC-11023) " HN: 2,6,40 (N.E.2d) 2482 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Leslie BURTON-BROWN, Defendant/Appellant., 2011 WL 5564215, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. May 27, 2011) Brief and Record Appendix of the Appellant, Leslie Burton-Brown (NO. SJC-11054) " HN: 20 (N.E.2d) 2483 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Appellee, v. Allissa PUGH, Defendant-Appellant., 2011 WL 5118363, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Feb 2011) Brief for the Commonwealth (NO. SJC-10895) 2484 Amy E. HUNTER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miko ROSE, Defendant-Appellant., 2011 WL 8148458, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. 2011) Brief of DefendantAppellant (NO. SJC-11010) HN: 38 (N.E.2d) 2485 Dorothy Ann FINCH, Roxanne S. Prince and Jane Does Nos. 1-2, the names of Jane Doe being fictitious, Individually and on Behalf of All Similarly Situated Persons, v. COMMONWEALTH HEALTH INSURANCE CONNECTOR AUTHORITY, and Jon Kingsdale, in his official capacity as the executive director of Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority and Commonwealth of Massachusetts., 2010 WL 4113604, *4113604+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Sep 03, 2010) Brief and Record Appendix for the Plaintiff on Reserve and Report from the Single Justice (NO. SJC-10748) HN: 27 (N.E.2d) 2486 U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee for the Structured Asset Securities Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-Z, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Antonio IBANEZ, Defendant-Appellee. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee for ABFC 2005-OPT1 Trust, ABFC Asset Backed Certficate Series 2005-OPT1, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mark A. LaRace and Tammy L. LaRace, Defendants-Appellees., 2010 WL 3880727, *3880727+
(Appellate Brief) (Mass. Aug 17, 2010) Brief and Supplemental Record Appendix of the Defendants-Appellees Mark A, LaRace and Tammy L. LaRace (NO. 10694) HN: 17 (N.E.2d) 2487 Kenneth S. ANSIN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cheryl A. CRAVEN-ANSIN, Defendant-Appellant., 2010 WL 1476202, *1476202+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Feb 02, 2010) Appellant's Reply Brief (NO. SJC-10548) 2488 COMMONWEALTH, Appellee, v. Wayne MIRANDA, Appellant., 2010 WL 3612925, *3612925+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Feb 2010) Reply Brief of Wayne Miranda, Defendant-Appellant (NO. SJC-10568) 2489 Sophie C. CURRIER on Behalf of Herself and on Behalf of Lea M. GallienCurrier, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NATIONAL BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS, Defendant-Appellee., 2010 WL 7827716, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. 2010) Brief for the Plaintiffs-Appellants Sophie C. Currier On Behalf of Herself and on Behalf of Lea M. Gallien-Currier (NO. SJC-10898) " HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 2490 COMMONWEALTH, v. Wayne MIRANDA., 2010 WL 3612924, *3612924+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. 2010) Commonwealth's Brief (NO. SJC-10568) " 2491 Joseph V. ARNO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Defendant-Appellant., 2009 WL 5501134, *5501134+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Nov 20, 2009) Brief of the Appellant Commonwealth of Massachusetts (NO. SJC-10559) HN: 10 (N.E.2d) 2492 Kenneth S. ANSIN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cheryl A. CRAVEN-ANSIN, Defendant-Appellant., 2009 WL 6849490, *6849490+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Nov 12, 2009) Appellant's Brief (NO. SJC-10548) " HN: 11 (N.E.2d) 2493 Vincent GILLESPIE and Edward Hamel, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. CITY OF NORTHAMPTON, Defendant - Appellee., 2009 WL 7452948, *7452948+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Aug 24, 2009) Brief Of Plaintiffs - Appellants (NO. 10791) " HN: 28 (N.E.2d) 2494 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF REGISTRATION IN MEDICINE, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. HALLMARK HEALTH CORPORATION, Lawrence Memorial Hospital, Melrose-Wakefield Hospital and Winchester Hospital, Defendants, Appellees., 2009 WL 451492, *451492+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Jan 07, 2009) Brief and Supplemental Appendix of Amici Curiae, Professional Liability Foundation, Ltd. and Massachusetts Psychiatric Society, Inc. (NO. SJC-10297) 2495 Ross E. MITCHELL, Petitioner/Appellant, v. BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS, Respondent/Appellee., 2008 WL 4216449, *4216449+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Apr 18, 2008) Brief for the Petitioner (NO. SJC-10157) HN: 21 (N.E.2d) 2496 Robert MAGRINI, Petitioner-Appellant, v. NEWTON-WELLESLEY HOSPITAL, Respondent-Appellee., 2008 WL 1881589, *1881589+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Mar 24, 2008) Brief Amici Curiae of the Mental Health Legal Advisors Committee, the Committee for Public Counsel Services, And the
Disability Law Center (NO. SJC-10119) 2497 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Appellee, v. Michael E. BENSON, Appellant., 2007 WL 5517509, *5517509+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Dec 21, 2007) Brief for Appellant, Michael E. Benson (NO. SJC-09636) HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 2498 COMMONWEALTH, v. Edward DONOHUE., 2007 WL 5084453, *5084453 (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Dec 17, 2007) Brief and Record Appendix of James V. Dipaola, Sheriff of Middlesex County, Appealing Orders and an Injunction Issued by the Superior Court Against Middlesex County Sheriff's Office in Underlying ... (NO. SJC-10159) 2499 Steven R. KENNIE and Julia Lane Hagen, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TOWN OF DENNIS DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Alan Marcy, et al., Defendants-Appellees., 2007 WL 5434039, *5434039+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Nov 09, 2007) Brief of Plaintiffs/Appellants Steven Kennie and Julia Lane Hagen (NO. SJC-10052) " HN: 20,21 (N.E.2d) 2500 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Appellee, v. Jonathon MALDONADO, Appellant., 2007 WL 5021969, *5021969+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Oct 05, 2007) Reply Brief for Jonathon Maldonado (NO. SJC-10015) " HN: 26 (N.E.2d) 2501 Michelle D. CHARRON, Cynthia J. Kalish, and Hannah E. Kalish, PPA Cynthia J. Kalish, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Edward L. AMARAL, MD., Laura J. Bessette, MD. and Fallon Clinic, Inc., Defendants-Appellees., 2007 WL 5434034, *5434034+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Oct 05, 2007) Brief of Amicus Curiae Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (NO. SJC-09942) " HN: 31,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2502 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Appellant, v. Nelson GONZALEZ, Appellee., 2007 WL 5021967, *5021967+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Oct 02, 2007) Reply Brief for Defendant-Appellant, Nelson Gonzalez (NO. SJC-10015) HN: 24 (N.E.2d) 2503 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Appellee, v. Jonathon MALDONADO, Appellant., 2007 WL 5021968, *5021968+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Apr 30, 2007) Brief and Appendix for Jonathon Maldonado (NO. SJC10015) " HN: 26,30 (N.E.2d) 2504 Michelle D. CHARRON, Cynthia J. Kalish, and Hannah E. Kalish, Ppa Cynthia J. Kalish, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Edward L. AMARAL, M.D., Laura J. Bessette, M.D., and Fallon Clinic, Inc., Defendants-Appellees., 2007 WL 5434035, *5434035+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Mar 15, 2007) Brief of the PlaintiffsAppellants (NO. SJC-09942) " HN: 17,36,42 (N.E.2d) 2505 Michelle D. CHARRON, Cynthia J. Kalish, and Hannah E. Kalish, PPA Cynthia J. Kalish, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Edward L. AMARAL, MD., Laura J. Bessette, MD. and Fallon Clinic, Inc., Defendant-Appellees., 2006 WL 6013529, *6013529+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Nov 27, 2006) Brief of the Amicus Curiae Massachusetts Bar Association (NO. SJC-09942) " HN: 15,31,42
(N.E.2d) 2506 Paul SPEROUNES, Defendant - Appellant, v. Alfred Paul FARESE, Jr., Trustee of Alphfa Realty Trust, Plaintiff-Appellee., 2006 WL 4516029, *4516029+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Aug 30, 2006) Brief of the Appellant, Paul Sperounes (NO. SJC-09698) 2507 Johanna SCHULMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thomas REILLY, in his official capacity as Attorney General and William F. Galvin, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Commonwealth, Defendants-Appellees, Hon. Raymond Flynn, Hon. Philip Travis, Richard Guerriero, Jossie Owens, Roberto Miranda, Richard Richardson, Bronwyn Loring, C. Joseph Doyle, Kris Mineau, Lura Mineau, Thomas Shields and Madelyn Shields, Defendants-Interveners., 2006 WL 1547839, *1547839+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Apr 24, 2006) Reply Brief of the Plaintiff-Appellant (NO. SJC-09684) 2508 Johanna SCHULMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thomas REILLY, in his official capacity as Attorney General, William F Galvin, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Commonwealth, Defendants-Appellees, Hon Raymond Flynn, Hon Philip Travis, et al., Defendants-Interveners., 2006 WL 1547841, *1547841+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Apr 07, 2006) Brief of Amici Curiae Former Attorney General of the Commonwealth Robert H. Quinn, and Law Professors Philip Cleary, Dwight G. Duncan, Scott Fitzgibbon, Hon Joseph R. Nolan (Ret.), and Richard D. ... (NO. SJC-09684) HN: 15 (N.E.2d) 2509 Johanna SCHULMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thomas REILLY, in his Official Capacity as Attorney General and William F. Galvin, in his Official Capacity as Secretary of the Commonwealth, Defendants-Appellees, Hon Raymond Flynn, Hon Philip Travis, Richard Guerriero, Jossie Owens, Roberto Miranda, Richard Richardson, Bronwyn Loring, C. Joseph Doyle, Kris Mineau, Lura Mineau, Thomas Shields and Madelyn Shields, Defendants-Interveners., 2006 WL 1547842, *1547842+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Apr 07, 2006) Brief of the Defendants-Interveners (NO. SJC-09684) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 2510 Johanna SCHULMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Attorney GENERAL and Secretary of the Commonwelath, Defendants-Appellees., 2006 WL 1547840, *1547840+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Apr 03, 2006) Brief of State Defendants-Appellees Attorney General and Secretary of the Commonwealth (NO. SJC-09684) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 2511 Johanna SCHULMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thomas REILLY, in his official capacity as Attorney General and William F. Galvin, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Commonwealth, Defendants-Appellees, Hon. Raymond Flynn, Hon. Philip Travis, Richard Guerriero, Jossie Owens, Roberto Miranda, Richard Richardson, Bronwyn Loring, C. Joseph Doyle, Kris Mineau, Lura Mineau, Thomas Shields and Madelyn Shields, Defendants-Interveners., 2006 WL 1547838, *1547838+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Mar 01, 2006) Brief of the Plaintiff-Appellant (NO. SJC-09684) 2512 Michelle D. CHARRON, Cynthia J. Kalish, and Hannah E. Kalish, Ppa Cynthia
J. Kalish, Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. Edward L. AMARAL, M.D., Laura J. Bessette, M.D., and Fallon Clinic, Inc., Defendants, Appellees., 2006 WL 6013528, *6013528+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Jan 23, 2006) Brief of Defendants, Appellees (NO. SJC-09942) " HN: 11,17,36 (N.E.2d) 2513 Stefano PICCIOTTO and others, Appellants, v. The Honorable Barbara J. ROUSE, as Chief Justice of the Superior Court, Appellee., 2005 WL 3954107, *3954107+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Oct 02, 2005) Appellant's Brief on Appeal from Judgment Denying the Petition for Writ of Certiorari of the Single Justice of this Court (NO. SJC-09493) 2514 Peter JARRETT and Springfield Preservation Trust, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Springfield LIBRARY and Museums Association, Inc., et al, DefendantsAppellants., 2005 WL 3954129, *3954129+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Apr 22, 2005) Brief of Defendant-Appellant Springfield Library and Museums Association, Inc. (NO. SJC-09600) " HN: 3 (N.E.2d) 2515 Jose MENDOZA, d/b/a Oliver's, f/k/a Bentley's Neighborhood Bar and Grill, Plaintiff - Appellees, v. John SAULINO, Americo Ramos, and Andre Latessa, as Members of the Licensing Board of the City of Fall River, and the City of Fall River, Defendants - Appellants., 2004 WL 3398200, *3398200+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Dec 17, 2004) Brief Amicus Curiae of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts (NO. SJC-09354) " HN: 20 (N.E.2d) 2516 Pauline C. WATSON, in her Capacity as Trustee of the Trusts Under the Will of Ella E. Williams; and Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Company, in its Sole Capacity as Trustee of the Trusts under the Will of Ella E. Williams, PlaintiffsAppellants, v. Ruth W. BAKER, Defendant-Appellee, Judith B. Carpenter, in her Capacity as Executrix of the Estate of William T. Carpenter, Jr.; Pauline C. Watson, in her Capacity as Beneficiary of the Trusts under the Will of Ella E., 2004 WL 3431731, *3431731+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Dec 13, 2004) Plaintiffs-Appellants' Reply Brief (NO. SJC-09347) HN: 30 (N.E.2d) 2517 C. Joseph DOYLE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Hillary GOODRIDGE, Julie Goodridge, David Wilson. Robert Compton. Michael Horgan, Edward Belmelli, Maureen Brodoff, Ellen Wade, Gary Chalmers, Richard Linnell, Heidi Norton, Gina Smith, Gloria Bailey and Linda Davies, Plaintiffs-Appellees, Department of Public Health and Commissioner of Public Health, Defendants-Appellees., 2004 WL 3421941, *3421941+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Sep 22, 2004) Reply Brief of the Petitioner-Appellant (NO. SJC-09254) 2518 Pauline C. WATSON, in her capacity as Trustee of the Trusts Under the will of Ella E. Williams; and Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Company, in its Sole Capacity as Trustee of the Trusts under the will of Ella E. Williams, PlaintiffsAppellants, v. Ruth W. BAKER Defendant-Appellee, Judith B. Carpenter, in her Capacity as Temporary Executrix of the Estate of William T. Carpenter, Jr.; Pauline C. Watson, in her Capacity as Beneficiary of the Trusts under the will, 2004 WL 3431729, *3431729+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Aug 31, 2004) Plaintiffs-Appellants' Brief (NO. SJC-00983) HN: 29 (N.E.2d)
2519 C. Joseph DOYLE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Hillary GOODRIDGE, Julie Goodridge, David Wilson, Robert Compton, Michael Horgan, Edward Balmelli, Xaureex Brodoff, Ellen Wade, Gary Chalmers, Richard Linnell, Heidi Norton, Gina Smith, Gloria Bailey, Linda Davies, Department of Public Health, and Commissioner of Public Health, Respondents-Appellees., 2004 WL 3421940, *3421940+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Aug 09, 2004) Brief of the Goodridge Respondents-Appellees (NO. SJC-09254) 2520 C. Joseph DOYLE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Hillary GOODRIDGE, Julie Goodridge, David Wilson, Robert Compton, Michael Horgan, Edw Ard Belmelli, Maureen Brodoff, Ellen Wade, Gary Chalmers, Richard Linnell, Heidi Norton, Gina Smith, Gloria Bailey and Linda Davies, Plaintiffs-Appellees, Department of Public Health and Commissioner of Public Health, Defendants-Appellees., 2004 WL 3421939, *3421939+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Jun 15, 2004) Brief and Appendix of the Petitioner-Appellant (NO. SJC-09254) 2521 Jerry WIENER, Aquinnah Building Insp. and Zoning Officer, Plaintiff, Aquinnah/Gay Head Community Association, Inc., and UMB Bank, Trustee of the Thomas P. Benton Trust, Plaintiff/Intervenors - Appellants, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Intervenor, v. WAMPANOAG AQUINNAH SHELLFISH HATCHERY CORP. and Wampanoag Tribal Council of Gay Head, Inc., Defendants - Appellees., 2004 WL 3250662, *3250662+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. May 24, 2004) Reply Brief of Plaintiff-Intervenor/Appellant Aquinnah/Gay Head Community Association, Inc. (NO. SJC-09211) HN: 3 (N.E.2d) 2522 Robert P. WEINBERG, D.O, Appellant, v. Board of Registration in Medicine, Appellee., 2004 WL 3330142, *3330142+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. May 17, 2004) Brief on Behalf of Appellant (NO. SJC-00491) 2523 MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, PlaintiffAppellant, v. Geraldine ROSS and the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, Defendants-Appellees., 2004 WL 433480, *433480+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Jan 26, 2004) Brief of the Amici Curiae Achusnet Housing Authority, et al. (NO. SJC-09002) HN: 11 (N.E.2d) 2524 MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Appellant, v. MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION and Geraldine Ross, Appellees, Wilfert Brothers Realty Co., Appellant, v. David Keeling, Appellant and Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, Appellee, Stonehill College, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination and Professor Tan, Defendants/Appellees, Keyland Corporation et al., Plaintiff/Appellant, v., 2004 WL 2270415, *2270415+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Jan 21, 2004) Supplemental Brief of the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (NO. SJC-09002, SJC09081, SJC-09110, SJC-09112) 2525 MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Appellant, v. MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION and Geraldine Ross, Appellees. Wilfert Brothers Realty Co., Appellant, v. David Keeling, Appellant and Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination,
Appellee. Stonehill College, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination and Professor Tan, Defendants/Appellees. Keyland Corporation et al., Plaintiff/Appellant, v., 2004 WL 433478, *433478+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Jan 21, 2004) Supplemental Brief of the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (NO. SJC-09002, SJC09081, SJC-09100, SJC-09112) 2526 REQUEST FOR AN ADVISORY OPINION A-107., 2004 WL 433502, *433502+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Jan 12, 2004) Brief of Civil Rights Amici Curiae, United States Representative John Lewis; The American Civil Liberties Union Foundation; The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts; The Asian-American ... (NO. SJC-09163) " HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 2527 REQUEST FOR AN ADVISORY OPINION (A-107) On Senate No. 2175, Entitled ""An Act Relative to Civil Unions."", 2004 WL 433507, *433507+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Jan 12, 2004) Brief of Amicus Curiae, Mendillo & Ross, LLP (NO. SJC-09163) HN: 31,36,42 (N.E.2d) 2528 In the Matter of A REQUEST FOR AN ADVISORY OPINION FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE., 2004 WL 433508, *433508+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Jan 12, 2004) Brief of Interested Party/Amicus Curiae Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (NO. SJC-09163) " HN: 15,31,36 (N.E.2d) 2529 REQUEST FOR AN ADVISORY OPINION A-107., 2004 WL 433512, *433512+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Jan 12, 2004) Brief Amici Curiae of Alliance Defense Fund and Center for Marriage Law (NO. SJC-09163) " HN: 31,36,42 (N.E.2d) 2530 In the Matter of AN OPINION OF THE JUSTICES ON SENATE BILL NO.2175, ""an Act Relative to Civil Unions."", 2004 WL 433504, *433504+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Jan 09, 2004) Brief of the Amicus Curiae Massachusetts Bar Association (NO. SJC-09163) " HN: 31,36,42 (N.E.2d) 2531 Pauline C. WATSON, in her Capacity as Trustee of the Trusts under the Will of Ella E. Williams, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ruth W. BAKER, DefendantAppellee, Judith B. Carpenter, in her Capacity as Executrix of the Estate of William T. Carpenter, Jr., et al., Interested Parties., 2004 WL 3431730, *3431730+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. 2004) Brief of the Defendant-Appellee (NO. SJC-09347) 2532 REQUEST FOR ADVISORY OPINION (A-107)., 2003 WL 23317672, *23317672+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Dec 21, 2003) Brief of Amici Curiae Human Rights Campaign; National Gay and Lesbian Task Force; Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association; Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus; Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual ... (NO. SJC-09163) " HN: 15 (N.E.2d) 2533 REQUEST FOR ADVISORY OPINION (A-107) Senate No. 2175., 2003 WL 23317670, *23317670+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Nov 18, 2003) Brief of Amicus
Curiae (NO. SJC-09163) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 2534 REQUEST FOR ADVISORY, No. A-107., 2003 WL 23317671, *23317671 (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Nov 18, 2003) Brief from Interested Parties, Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage, and Sarah McVay Pawlick (NO. SJC09163) 2535 STONEHILl COLLEGE, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION and Soo Tang Tan, Defendants/ Appellees., 2003 WL 23317654, *23317654+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass. Mar 20, 2003) Supplemental Brief for Defendant/Appellee Soo Tang Tan (NO. SJC09112) " HN: 29 (N.E.2d) 2536 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Appellee, v. David CLARK, Defendant-Appellant., 2013 WL 5590198, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Sep 23, 2013) Brief and Record Appendix of David Clark (NO. 2013-P-1281) 2537 Diane M. YOUNKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Executive Office of Health and Human Services, Department of Transitional Assistance, Defendant-Appellee., 2013 WL 4737288, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Aug 14, 2013) Brief of the Appellant, Diane M. Younker (NO. 2013-P-0855) 2538 Joseph L. SULLIVAN and Mary R. Sullivan, v. KONDAUR CAPITAL CORPORATION., 2013 WL 3859807, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Jul 12, 2013) Opening Brief for the Plaintiffs-Appellants Joseph L. Sullivan and Mary R. Sullivan (NO. 2013-P-0706) 2539 Stephen C. MONTANA, v. Sally J. WINTERS, Trustee of Motel Realty Trust., 2013 WL 1124135, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Feb 28, 2013) Brief for the Appellant, Sally J. Winters, Trustee of the Motel Realty Trust On Appeal from the Land Court, with Whom the Defendants, Leonard J. French, Joseph Verna, Shirley A. French, Michael ... (NO. 12-P-1698) 2540 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Appellee, v. Ryan MCNEE, Defendant-Appellant., 2012 WL 6067505, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Nov 2012) Defendant's Reply Brief (NO. 2012-P-1078) 2541 Adele RIESENBERG, v. Michael WATSON, Sr., 2012 WL 1912760, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. May 09, 2012) Brief of Appellee and Supplemental Appendix (NO. 2012-P-0423) " HN: 20 (N.E.2d) 2542 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUETTS, Appellant, v. Marcus DANIELS, Defendant-Appellee., 2012 WL 1078591, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Mar 2012) Brief and Appendix for the Commonwealth On Appeal from An Order of the Dorchester Division of the Boston Municipal Court (NO. 2011-P-2152) 2543 NORTH SHORE KENNEL OF LYNN, INC, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Defendant-Appellee., 2011 WL 6258342, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Nov 23, 2011) Brief of the Appellee (NO. 2011-P-0820)
2544 COMMONWEALTH, Appelle, v. Vladimir SAMUEL, Appellant., 2011 WL 5563680, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Oct 26, 2011) Appellant's Brief & Appendix (NO. 2011-P-0643) 2545 NORTH SHORE KENNEL OF LYNN, INC., William H. O'Donnell, Sr., and Joan F. O'Donnell, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Defendant/Appellee., 2011 WL 3896984, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Aug 19, 2011) Brief of Appellants (NO. 2011-P-0820) " HN: 20,23,24 (N.E.2d) 2546 COMMONWEALTH, v. Darryl KELSEY., 2011 WL 3488905, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Jul 22, 2011) Reply Brief for the Defendant on Appeal. from the Lynn District Court (NO. 2010-P-1481) HN: 38 (N.E.2d) 2547 Gabriella Della CORTE, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Angelica RAMIREZ, Defendant/ Appellee., 2011 WL 3022102, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Jul 12, 2011) Brief for the Defendant/Appellee (NO. 2011-P-0451) " HN: 12,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2548 Todd ELIA-WARNKEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard ELIA, DefendantAppellee., 2011 WL 2617389, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Jun 22, 2011) Brief of Defendant-Appellee Richard Elia (NO. 2011-P-0069) " HN: 2,6,40 (N.E.2d) 2549 COMMONWEALTH, Appellee, v. Lamar R. FORD, Appellant., 2011 WL 2456111, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Jun 02, 2011) Appellant's Brief & Appendix (NO. 2010-P-1459) 2550 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Leslie BURTON-BROWN, Defendant/Appellant., 2011 WL 2324796, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. May 2011) Brief and Record Appendix of the Appellant, Leslie Burton-Brown (NO. 2011-P-0263) " HN: 20 (N.E.2d) 2551 Jean J. ROWSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jayne B. DENOYER, DefendantAppellee., 2011 WL 4586794, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Apr 15, 2011) Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellant, Jean J. Rowson (NO. 2011-P-1156) 2552 Lindsey THOMKA ppa Robert Thomka, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MASSACHUSETTS INTERSCHOLASTIC ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, INC., Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Council Members, and Richard F. Neal, Defendant-Appellants., 2011 WL 703574, *703574+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Feb 10, 2011) Brief of the Appellee Lindsey Thomka Ppa Robert Thomka (NO. 2010-P-0925) 2553 Sophie C. CURRIER on Behalf of Herself and on Behalf of Lea M. GallienCurrier, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NATIONAL BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS, Defendant-Appellee., 2011 WL 304303, *304303+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Jan 14, 2011) Brief for the Plaintiffs-Appellants, Sophie C. Currier on Behalf of Herself and on Behalf of Lea M. Gallien-Currier (NO. 2010-P-2028) 2554 Henry L. GUARINO, v. Richard B. KENNEDY and Antoinette Kennedy., 2011
WL 158654, *158654+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Jan 03, 2011) Brief and Record Appendix for the Defendant on Appeal from a Judgment of the Suffolk Superior Court (NO. 2010-P-1657) 2555 Matthew WININGER, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. TSL MARKETING, Defendant, Appellant., 2010 WL 5568033, *5568033+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Dec 20, 2010) Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee, Matthew Wininger (NO. 2010-P-1810) 2556 Sebastiana Nella ACCARDI, Appellee, v. Joseph Nicholas ACCARDI, Appellant., 2010 WL 4735471, *4735471+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Oct 30, 2010) Reply Brief of the Defendant-Appellant Joseph Nicholas Accardi (NO. 2010-P-0786) 2557 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Appellee, v. Allissa PUGH, Defendant-Appellant., 2010 WL 4338729, *4338729+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Oct 15, 2010) Brief for the Commonwealth (NO. 2010-P-0480) 2558 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Appellee, v. James DEAL, Defendant-Appellant., 2010 WL 3415198, *3415198 (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Aug 11, 2010) Brief for the Commonwealth on Appeal from A Judgment of the Central Division of the Boston Municipal Court (NO. 2010-P-0138) 2559 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Shawquan JACKSON, Defendant/Appellant., 2010 WL 3249933, *3249933+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Aug 2010) Brief and Record Appendix of the Appellant, Shawquan Jackson (NO. 2010-P-0582) 2560 Susan PAINE, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Valerie SULLIVAN, Defendant/Appellant., 2010 WL 2174052, *2174052+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. May 13, 2010) Brief of the Defendant/Appellant Valerie Sullivan (NO. 10-P-0289) 2561 Lourdes MORALES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONTRIBUTORY RETIREMENT APPEAL BOARD and State Board of Retirement, Defendant-Appellees., 2010 WL 1767896, *1767896+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Apr 16, 2010) Reply Brief for Plaintiff-Appellant and Addendum to the Brief (NO. 2010-P-0108) 2562 Todd ELIA - WARNKEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard ELIA, DefendantAppellee., 2010 WL 6511293, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Apr 04, 2010) Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellant Todd Elia-Warnken (NO. 2011-P-0069) " HN: 1,3,4 (N.E.2d) 2563 Lourdes MORALES, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. STATE BOARD OF RETIREMENT and Contributory Retirement Appeal Board, Defendants/Appellees., 2010 WL 1676397, *1676397+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Apr 01, 2010) Brief of the Defendant/ Appellee, State Board of Retirement (NO. 2010-P-0108) 2564 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Appellee, v. Dennis HOLT, Appellant., 2010 WL 1746515, *1746515+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Mar 11, 2010) Brief for the Commonwealth (NO. 09-P-2032)
2565 RYO CIGAR ASSOCIATION, INC. and New Image Global, Inc., PlaintiffsAppellants, v. BOSTON PUBLIC HEALTH COMMISSION, DefendantAppellee., 2010 WL 530221, *530221+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Feb 01, 2010) Reply Brief of the Plaintiffs-Appellants, Ryo Cigar Association, Inc. and New Image Global, Inc. (NO. 2009-P-1619) 2566 COMMONWEALTH, v. Derrel C. WEBB., 2010 WL 6511295, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. 2010) Brief and Record Appendix for the Appellant on Appeal from the Plymouth Superior Court (NO. 2010-P-1862) " HN: 29 (N.E.2d) 2567 COMMONWEALTH, v. Leonard C. SZERLONG., 2009 WL 3602798, *3602798+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Oct 15, 2009) Commonwealth's Brief (NO. 2009-P-0208) 2568 RYO CIGAR ASSOCIATION, INC. and New Image Global, Inc., PlaintiffsAppellants, HBI International Corp. and Blunt Wrap USA, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. BOSTON PUBLIC HEALTH COMMISSION, Defendant-Appellee., 2009 WL 3423291, *3423291+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Oct 06, 2009) Brief of the Plaintiffs-Appellants, Ryo Cigar Association, Inc. and New Image Global, Inc. (NO. 2009-P-1619) 2569 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, v. Aaron POWELL., 2009 WL 2944746, *2944746+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Aug 25, 2009) Brief and Record Appendix for the Defendant on Appeal from the Boston Division of the Municipal Court Department (NO. 2009-P-1045) 2570 Vincent GILLESPIE and Edward Hamel, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. CITY OF NORTHAMPTON, Defendant - Appellee., 2009 WL 2920082, *2920082+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Aug 24, 2009) Brief of Plaintiffs - Appellants (NO. 2009-P-0992) 2571 Anthony ORLOFSKI, Employee-Appellant, v. TOWN OF WALES, Employer, v. Massachusetts Interlocal Insurance Association, Insurer-Appellee., 2009 WL 2944751, *2944751+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Aug 21, 2009) Brief of the Appellant (NO. 2009-P-1175) 2572 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Appellee, v. Lori NUGENT, Appellant., 2009 WL 1933194, *1933194+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Jun 18, 2009) Brief and Supplemntal Record Appendix for the Commonwealth (NO. 08-P-827) 2573 COMMONWEALTH, Appellee, v. Jason CHAU and Anthony Chau, DefendantsAppellants., 2009 WL 1764207, *1764207+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. May 2009) Reply Brief of Defendants-Appellants (NO. 2008-P-2043) 2574 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Appellee, v. Troy STONE, Appellant., 2009 WL 1347092, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Apr 28, 2009) Brief and Supplemental Record Appendix for the Commonwealth (NO. 08-P-1725) 2575 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Appellee, v. Steven SARGENT, Appellant., 2008 WL 5326978, *5326978+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Nov
21, 2008) Brief for the Commonwealth (NO. 08-P-436) 2576 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Appellfe, v. Winston A. SMTTH, Appellant., 2008 WL 5009191, *5009191+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Oct 21, 2008) Brief and Record Appendix for the Defendantappellant (NO. 08-P-1523) 2577 Anwar FAISAL, Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. Iwona KUR-ROCCO, Appellant/ Cross-Appellee., 2008 WL 5008039, *5008039+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Oct 14, 2008) Principal Brief of Appellant/Cross-Appellee Iwona Kur-Rocco (NO. 08-P-123) 2578 Ernest ORTIZ, Plaintiff, pro se, v. COMMISSIONER MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (In his official capacity), Catherine J. Ortiz, Defendants., 2008 WL 449912, *449912+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Jan 03, 2008) Reply Brief for Appellant (NO. 2007-P-1390) HN: 27 (N.E.2d) 2579 Michelle INOSCENCIO, Appellant, v. J. ARTHUR BOORAS, et als., Appellees., 2008 WL 5327063, *5327063+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. 2008) Brief for the Appellant and Record Appendix (NO. 08-P-1584) 2580 COMMONWEALTH, v. Edward DONOHUE., 2007 WL 4751632, *4751632 (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Dec 17, 2007) Brief and Record Appendix of James V. Dipaola, Sheriff of Middlesex County, Appealing Orders and An Injunction Issued By the Superior Court Against Middlesex County Sheriff's Office In Underlying ... (NO. 2007-P-1693) 2581 William F. MCDERMOTT, Appellant, v. Kathleen DENNEHY, et al., Appellees., 2007 WL 4723552, *4723552+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Nov 26, 2007) Reply Brief for the Appellant (NO. 07-P-922) " HN: 3 (N.E.2d) 2582 Ernest ORTIZ, Appellant, pro se, v. COMMISSIONER MASSACHSUETTS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (In his official capacity), Appellee, Catherine J. Ortiz, Appellee., 2007 WL 4101442, *4101442+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Oct 17, 2007) Brief and Record Appendix for the Appellant (NO. 2007-P-1390) HN: 17,27 (N.E.2d) 2583 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Appellee, v. Erik MONTALBAN, Appellant., 2007 WL 2733007, *2733007+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Aug 2007) Brief and Record Appendix of Appellant Erik Montalban (NO. 2007-P-431) HN: 24 (N.E.2d) 2584 Dennis A. CIAMPI, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION, et al., Defendants - Appellants., 2007 WL 2752434, *2752434+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Aug 2007) Brief and Addenda of Amicus Curiae Massachusetts Correctional Legal Services, Inc. (NO. 07-P-0721) HN: 28 (N.E.2d) 2585 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Appellee, v. Jonathon MALDONADO, et al, Appellant., 2007 WL 1571479, *1571479+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Apr 30, 2007) Brief and Appendix for Jonathon Maldonado (NO. 07-P-431) " HN: 26,30 (N.E.2d) 2586 Hope HAZARD, Appellant, v. Peter OLIVENCIA, Appellee., 2007 WL 989736,
*989736+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Mar 08, 2007) Appellant's Reply Brief (NO. 06-P-1650) HN: 37 (N.E.2d) 2587 Kevin P. LOUGHMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ASSISTANT DISTRICT MANAGER, First Security Services Corporation & Another, DefendantsAppellees., 2007 WL 989664, *989664+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Mar 06, 2007) Plaintiff's Reply Brief in Answer to the Brief for the DefendantsAppellees Securitas Security Services, USA, Inc. as Successor to First Security Services Corporation and Maura Feeley (Defendants' ... (NO. 06-P-1315) 2588 LITTLETON ELECTRIC LIGHT DEPARTMENT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MASSACHUSETTS DEVELOPMENT FINANCE AGENCY, DefendantAppellee., 2007 WL 5490069, *5490069+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Feb 26, 2007) Brief of Defendant-Appellee (NO. 2006-P-1780) 2589 LITTLETON ELECTRIC LIGHT DEPARTMENT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MASSACHUSETTS DEVELOPMENT FINANCE AGENCY, DefendantAppellee., 2007 WL 832073, *832073+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Feb 26, 2007) Brief of Defendant-Appellee (NO. 06-P-1780) HN: 3 (N.E.2d) 2590 John J. DENNIS and Margaret McCarthy-Dennis, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF WINCHESTER, et al., DefendantsAppellees., 2007 WL 626403, *626403+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Jan 20, 2007) Brief for the Plaintiffs-Appellants John J. Dennis and Margaret McCarthy-Dennis (NO. 06-P-1908) 2591 Joyce A. MINASIAN, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Kenneth P. MINASIAN, Defendant - Appellant., 2007 WL 4934315, *4934315+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. 2007) Brief of Defendant-Appellant Kenneth P. Minasian (NO. 07-P-1466) " HN: 15 (N.E.2d) 2592 Ruth PELLEGRINI, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard A. SILVA, et als., Defendants-Appellants., 2006 WL 3907933, *3907933+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Dec 08, 2006) Brief of Appellee, Ruth Pellegrini (NO. 06-P-865) 2593 Michelle D. CHARRON, Cynthia J. Kalish, and Hannah E. Kalish, PPA Cynthia J. Kalish, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Edward L. AMARAL, MD., Laura J. Bessette, MD. and Fallon Clinic, Inc., Defendant-Appellees., 2006 WL 3907971, *3907971+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Nov 27, 2006) Brief of the Amicus Curiae Massachusetts Bar Association (NO. 06-P-1077) " HN: 15,31,42 (N.E.2d) 2594 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Appellee, v. Marc BROWN, Appellant., 2006 WL 3624342, *3624342+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Nov 15, 2006) Appellate Brief (NO. 06-P-1355) " HN: 10,24 (N.E.2d) 2595 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Appellee, v. Rudy E. KENNEDY, Appellant., 2006 WL 3907975, *3907975+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Sep 21, 2006) Appellate Brief (NO. 06-P-1092) " HN: 10,24 (N.E.2d)
2596 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Appellee, v. Emanuel GARCIA, Appellant., 2006 WL 2618531, *2618531+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Aug 01, 2006) Brief and Appendix for the Defendant (NO. 06-P-660) " HN: 26 (N.E.2d) 2597 Thomas BATES, v. Martha GIARD & others., 2006 WL 4911047, *4911047+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Jul 24, 2006) Appellant's Brief on Appeal from the Worcester Superior Court (NO. 2006-P-0611) " HN: 27 (N.E.2d) 2598 Edgar J. BOWSER, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MASSACHUSETTS PAROLE BOARD, Defendant-Appellee., 2006 WL 2303693, *2303693+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Jul 14, 2006) Brief for the Appellee Massachusetts Parole Board (NO. 06-P-559) " HN: 29 (N.E.2d) 2599 Deborah MONTGOMERY, Appellant, v. Glynn MONTGOMERY, Appellee., 2006 WL 2151116, *2151116 (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Jun 19, 2006) Appellant's Brief (NO. 06-P-442) HN: 15 (N.E.2d) 2600 Steven R. KENNIE and Julia Lane Hagen, Plaintiffs- Appellants, v. TOWN OF DENNIS DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Alan Marcy, et al., Defendants-Appellees., 2006 WL 1499104, *1499104+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. May 02, 2006) Brief of Plaintiffs/Appellants Steven and Julia Lane Hagen (NO. 06-P-463) " HN: 20,21 (N.E.2d) 2601 James O'BRIEN, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Andrea J. CABRAL, as Sheriff of Suffolk County, Defendant/Appellee., 2006 WL 3384943, *3384943+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. 2006) Reply Brief of Plaintiff/Appellant James O'Brien (NO. 06-P-414) HN: 31 (N.E.2d) 2602 Michelle D. CHARRON, Cynthia J. Kalish, and Hannah E. Kalish, PPA Cynthia J. Kalish, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Edward L. AMARAL, M.D., Laura J. Bessette, M.D., and Fallon Clinic, Inc., Defendants-Appellees., 2006 WL 3907970, *3907970+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. 2006) Brief of the PlaintiffsAppellants (NO. 06-P-1077) " HN: 31,36,42 (N.E.2d) 2603 David GANONG, Appellant, v. Joan Elaine GANONG, Appellee., 2005 WL 4167718, *4167718+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Nov 17, 2005) Brief of Appellee (NO. 05-P-1281) " 2604 David GANONG, Appellant, v. Joan Elaine GANONG, Appellee., 2005 WL 3335047, *3335047+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Oct 18, 2005) Brief and Record Appendix for the Appellant (NO. 05-P-1281) " HN: 11,13 (N.E.2d) 2605 COMMONWEALTH, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. John YOUNG, Respondent/ Appellant., 2005 WL 3441021, *3441021+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Oct 07, 2005) Young's Supplemental/Reply Brief Regarding McHoul, Petitioner, 445 Mass. 143 (2005) (NO. 05-P-728) " 2606 COMMONWEALTH, v. GEORGE POWERS., 2005 WL 2921962, *2921962+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Aug 22, 2005) Commonwealth's Brief (NO. 03-P-1200) HN: 27 (N.E.2d)
2607 D.H.L. ASSOCIATES, INC., Appellant, v. TOWN OF TYNGSBOROUGH BOARD OF SELECTMEN et al, Appellees., 2004 WL 4795231, *4795231+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Sep 03, 2004) Brief and Record Appendix of Appellant (NO. 04-P-699) " HN: 20 (N.E.2d) 2608 MEREDITH & GREW, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WORCESTER LINCOLN, LLC and Plaza Properties LLC, Defendants Appellees., 2004 WL 5321777, *5321777+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. May 05, 2004) Brief for Defendants - Appellees (NO. 04-P-83) HN: 41 (N.E.2d) 2609 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Appellee, v. Kevin O'MALLEY, Defendant-Appellant., 2004 WL 4996548, *4996548+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. Jan 2004) Brief for the Commonwealth on Appeal from a Judgment of the Roxbury District Court (NO. 03-P-1189) " HN: 31 (N.E.2d) 2610 D.H.L. ASSOCIATES, INC., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. TOWN OF TYNGSBOROUGH BOARD OF SELECTMEN, et al., Defendants - Appellees., 2004 WL 4795232, *4795232+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. 2004) Brief of the Defendants - Appellees Town of Tyngsborough Board of Selectmen, et al. (NO. 04-P-699) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 2611 Jeffrey T. MILTON, Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Appellee., 2004 WL 5371191, *5371191+ (Appellate Brief) (Mass.App.Ct. 2004) Appellant's Brief and Record Appendix (NO. 2004-P-1766) HN: 27 (N.E.2d) 2612 Frank M. CONAWAY, et al., Appellants, v. Gitanjali DEANE, et al., Appellees., 2006 WL 3905926, *3905926+ (Appellate Brief) (Md. Nov 22, 2006) Reply Brief of Appellants (NO. 44) 2613 FRANK CONAWAY, et al., Appellants, v. GINTANJALI DEANE & LISA POLYAK, et al., Appellees., 2006 WL 3381873, *3381873+ (Appellate Brief) (Md. Oct 27, 2006) Brief Amici Curiae of Equality Maryland, Inc.; Families with Pride; Gay Fathers Coalition; Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Community Center of Baltimore and Central Maryland; Maryland Lesbian ... (NO. 44) " 2614 FRANK CONAWAY, et al., Petitioners, v. GITANJALI DEANE & LISA POLYAK, et al., Respondents., 2006 WL 3381872, *3381872+ (Appellate Brief) (Md. Oct 23, 2006) Brief of Amici Curiae Organization of American Historians; Bar Association of Baltimore City; Maryland Latino Coalition for Justice; Maryland Now; National Lawyer's Guild- Maryland; Public Justice ... (NO. 44) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 2615 FRANK CONAWAY, et al., Appellants, v. Gintanjali DEANE & Lisa Polyak, et al., Appellees., 2006 WL 3096520, *3096520+ (Appellate Brief) (Md. Oct 19, 2006) Brief Amici Curiae of Equality Maryland, Inc.; Families with Pride; Gay Fathers Coalition; Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender
Community Center of Baltimore and Central Maryland; Maryland Lesbian ... (NO. 44) " 2616 Frank M. CONAWAY, et al., Appellants, v. Gitanjali DEANE & Lisa Polyak, et al., Appellees., 2006 WL 3096522, *3096522+ (Appellate Brief) (Md. Oct 19, 2006) Brief of Amici Curiae Maryland Law Professors (NO. 44) " HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 2617 Frank CONAWAY, et al., Appellants, v. Gitanjali DEANE & Lisa Polyak, et al., Appellees., 2006 WL 3096523, *3096523 (Appellate Brief) (Md. Oct 19, 2006) Brief of Amici Curiae in support of Appellees, Gitanjali Deane & Lisa Polyak, et al. American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, Maryland Chapter (NO. 44) " HN: 13 (N.E.2d) 2618 Frank Con AWAY, et al., Defendants-Appellants, v. Gitanjali DEANE, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees., 2006 WL 6663553, *6663553+ (Appellate Brief) (Md. Sep 12, 2006) Brief Amicus Curiae of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty in Support of Defendants-Appellants and Urging Reversal of the Decision of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City (No. 24-C-04-005390, Hon. ... (NO. 44) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 2619 Frank CONAWAY, et al., Defendants-Appellants, v. Gitanjali DEANE, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees., 2006 WL 2725658, *2725658+ (Appellate Brief) (Md. Sep 08, 2006) Brief of Family Research Council as Amicus Curiae in Support of Defendants-Appellants (NO. 44) " HN: 31,33,34 (N.E.2d) 2620 Frank CONAWAY, et. al., Appellants, v. Gitanjali DEANE, et. al., Appellees., 2006 WL 2725659, *2725659+ (Appellate Brief) (Md. Sep 08, 2006) Brief of Amici Curiae Association of Maryland Families and Liberty Counsel and Support of Appellants (NO. 44) " HN: 31,32,34 (N.E.2d) 2621 Frank CONAWAY, et al., Defendants-Appellants, v. Gitanjali DEANE, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees., 2006 WL 2725660, *2725660+ (Appellate Brief) (Md. Sep 08, 2006) Brief Amici Curiae of James Q. Wilson, et al., Legal and Family Scholars, in Support of Defendants-Appellants (NO. 44) " HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 2622 Frank M. CONAWAY, et al., Appellants, v. Gitanjali DEANE, et al., Appellees., 2006 WL 2679782, *2679782+ (Appellate Brief) (Md. Sep 05, 2006) Brief of Appellants (NO. 44) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 2623 Frank M. CONAWAY, et al., Appellants, v. Gitanjali DEANE, et al., Appellees., 2006 WL 6667669, *6667669+ (Appellate Brief) (Md. Sep 05, 2006) Brief of Appellants (NO. 44) HN: 32,34 (N.E.2d) 2624 Robert P. DUCKWORTH, et al., Appellants, v. Gitanjali DEANE and Lisa Polyak, et al., Appellees., 2005 WL 84293, *84293+ (Appellate Brief) (Md. Jan 06, 2005) Brief of Plaintiff-Appellees (NO. 101) HN: 32 (N.E.2d) 2625 Jessica PORT, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Virginia Anne COWAN, Appellee/ Cross-Appellant., 2011 WL 7658789, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Md.App. Sep 15, 2011) Brief of Appellant and Record Extract (NO. 02135) HN: 2
(N.E.2d) 2626 Frank CONAWAY, et al., Defendants-Appellants, v. Gitanjali DEANE, et al, Plaintiffs-Appellees., 2006 WL 5263469, *5263469+ (Appellate Brief) (Md.App. Jun 26, 2006) Brief Amicus Curiae of Family Research Council In Support of Defendants-appellants (NO. 2499) " HN: 31,32,33 (N.E.2d) 2627 Frank CONAWAY, in his official capacity as Baltimore City Circuit Court Clerk; Rosalyn Pugh, in her official capacity as Prince George's County Circuit Court Clerk; Evelyn Arnold, in her official capacity as St. Mary's County Circuit Court Clerk; Dennis Weaver, in his official capacity as Washington County Circuit Court Clerk; Michael Baker, in his official capacity as Dorchester County Circuit Court Clerk, Defendants-Appellants, v. Gitanjali DEANE and Lisa, 2006 WL 5263472, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Md.App. Jun 23, 2006) Brief Amicus Curiae of the Maryland Catholic Conference In Support of Defendants-Appellants (NO. 2499) " HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 2628 Gitanjali DEANE & Lisa Polyak; Alvin Williams & Nigel Simon; Takia Foskey & Joanne Rabb; Jodi Kelber-Kaye & Stacy Kargman-Kaye; Donna Myers & Maria Barquero; John Lestitian; Charles Blackburn & Glen Dehn; Steven Palmer & Ryan Killough; Patrick Wojahn & David Kolesar; and Mikkole Mozelle & Phelicia Kebreau, Appellees, v. FRANK CONAWAY, in his official capacity as Baltimore City Circuit Court Clerk; Rosalyn Pugh, in her official capacity as Prince George's County, 2006 WL 2151056, *2151056+ (Appellate Brief) (Md.App. Jun 22, 2006) Brief of the American Center for Law & Justice, Northeast, Inc. as Amicus Curiae in Support of Defendant-Appellant (NO. 2499) HN: 32 (N.E.2d) 2629 FRANK CONAWAY, et al., Defendants-Appellants, v. Gitanjali DEANE, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees., 2006 WL 2151057, *2151057+ (Appellate Brief) (Md.App. Jun 22, 2006) Petition and Brief of Amici Curiae Citizens for Traditional Families, Family Leader Foundation, and United Families International in Support of Defendants-Appellants (NO. 02499) " HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 2630 Gitanjali DEANE & Lisa Polyak; Alvin Williams & Nigel Simon; Takia Foskey & Joanne Rabb; Jodi Kelber-kaye & Stacy Kargman-kaye; Donna Myers & Maria Barquero; John Lestitian; Charles Blackburn & Glen Dehn; Steven Palmer & Ryan Killough; Patrick Wojahn & David Kolesar; and Mikkole Mozelle & Phelicia Kebreau, Appellees, v. Frank CONAWAY, in his official capacity as Baltimore City Circuit Court Clerk; Rosalyn Pugh, in her official capacity as Prince George' County, 2006 WL 5263470, *5263470+ (Appellate Brief) (Md.App. Jun 22, 2006) Brief of the American Center for Law & Justice, Northeast, INC. As Amicus Curiae In Support of Defendant-Appellant (NO. 2499) HN: 32,34 (N.E.2d) 2631 Frank CONAWAY, et al, Defendants-Appellants, v. Gitanjali DEANE, et al, Plaintiffs-Appellees., 2006 WL 5263473, *5263473+ (Appellate Brief) (Md.App. Jun 22, 2006) Petition and Brief of Amici Curiae Citizens for Traditional Families, Family Leader Foundation, and United Families International In Support of Defendants-appellants (NO. 02499) " HN: 15,31 (N.E.2d)
2632 Frank CONAWAY, et al., Defendants-Appellants, v. Gitanjali DEANE, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees., 2005 WL 6018222, *6018222 (Appellate Brief) (Md.App. Jun 30, 2005) Petition and Brief Amicus Curiae of the Knights of Columbus In Support of Defendants-Appellants (NO. 02499) 2633 KARL ULF WILHELM HEDBERG, Appellant, v. ANNICA MADELAINE DETTHOW, Appellee., 2005 WL 5329399, *5329399+ (Appellate Brief) (Md.App. Apr 04, 2005) Appellant's Reply Brief (NO. 1789) " HN: 15,22 (N.E.2d) 2634 Karl ulf Wilhelm HEDBERG, Appellant, v. Annica Madelaine DETTHOW, Appellee., 2005 WL 5978686, *5978686+ (Appellate Brief) (Md.App. Apr 04, 2005) Appellant's Reply Brief (NO. 1789) " HN: 15,22 (N.E.2d) 2635 JOHN DOE I, et al., Appellants, v. Robert WILLIAMS, et al., Appellees., 2012 WL 8304510, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Me. Jan 25, 2012) Brief of Appellants (NO. KEN-11-454) 2636 NATIONAL PRIDE AT WORK, INC., a non-profit organization on behalf of its Michigan Members, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Jennifer GRANHOLM, in her official capacity, as Governor of the State of Michigan, City of Kalamazoo, a municipal corporation, Defendants; Michael A. Cox, in his official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Michigan, Intervening Defendant-Appellee., 2007 WL 3168662, *3168662+ (Appellate Brief) (Mich. Aug 30, 2007) PlaintiffAppellant's Brief on Appeal (NO. 133554) 2637 NATIONAL PRIDE AT WORK, INC., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Jennifer GRANHOLM, in her official capacity as Governor of the State of Michigan, Defendant-Appellant, City of Kalamazoo, a municipal corporation, DefendantAppellee, Michael A. Cox, in his official capacity, as Attorney General for the State of Michigan, Intervening Defendant-Appellee., 2007 WL 3168655, *3168655+ (Appellate Brief) (Mich. Aug 15, 2007) Brief of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., Human Rights Campaign, Human Rights Campaign Foundation, Triangle Foundation, Michigan Equality, the Women Lawyers Association of Michigan, and ... (NO. 133429) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 2638 NATIONAL PRIDE AT WORK, INC., Becky Allen, Dorthea Agnostopoulos, Adnan Ayoub, Meghan Bellanger, Judith Block, Mary M. Brisbois, Wade Carlson, Courtney D. Chapin, Michael Chapman, Michelle Corwin, Lori Curry, Joseph Darby, Scott Dennis, Jim Etzkorn, Jill Fuller, Susan Halsey-Ceragh, Peter Hammer, Debra Harrah, Ty Hither, Jolinda Jach, Terry Korreck, Craig Kukuk, Gary Lindsay, Kevin McMann, A.t. Miller, Kitty O'Neil, Dennis Patrick, Tom Patrick, Gregg Pizzi, Kathleen, 2007 WL 3168653, *3168653+ (Appellate Brief) (Mich. Jul 18, 2007) Appellant's Brief on Appeal (NO. 133429) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 2639 Terri ROHDE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ANN ARBOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, et al., Defendants., 2004 WL 5746219, *5746219 (Appellate Brief) (Mich.App. Sep 03, 2004) Amici Curiae Brief of the Washtenaw County Medical Society, the American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan, the Women Lawyers
Association of Michigan, and Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund ... (NO. 253565) 2640 ROGER LIONEL HANCOCK, Appellant, v. David Steven WATSON, Appellee., 2006 WL 4050534, *4050534+ (Appellate Brief) (Miss. Apr 19, 2006) Reply Brief of Appellant Roger Lionel Hancock (NO. 2005-IA-00413-COA) " HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 2641 Kelly D. GLOSSIP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAY PATROL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Respondent., 2012 WL 6825482, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Mo. Nov 05, 2012) Brief of Missouri Law Professors as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellant (NO. SC92583) HN: 34,36,38 (N.E.2d) 2642 Kelly D. GLOSSIP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and Highway Patrol Employees' Retirement System, Defendant-Respondent., 2013 WL 3973389, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Mo.App. E.D. Jul 18, 2013) Brief of Promo as Amicus Curiae On Behalf of Appellant Kelly D. Glossip (NO. SC92583) HN: 7 (N.E.2d) 2643 Jan DONALDSON and Mary Anne Guggenheim, Mary Leslie and Stacey Haugland, Gary Stallings and Rick Wagner, Kellie Gibson and Denise Boettcher, John Michael Long and Richard Parker, and Nancy Owens and MJ Williams, Appellants, v. STATE OF MONTANA, Appellee., 2011 WL 6056562, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Mont. Nov 21, 2011) Amicus Curiae Brief of Legal Voice and Montana Human Rights Network (NO. DA11-0451) " HN: 20,34,42 (N.E.2d) 2644 Mark LEWIS and Dennis Winslow; Saundra Heath and Clarita Alicia Toby; Craig Hutchison and Chris Lodewyks; Maureen Kilian and Cindy Meneghin; Sarah and Suyin Lael; Marilyn Maneely and Diane Marini; and Karen and Marcye Nicholson-McFadden, Petitioners-Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Gwendolyn L. HARRIS, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Human Services; Clifton R. Lacy, in his official capacity as the Commissioner, 2006 WL 6850897, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (N.J. Dec 14, 2006) Brief of Princeton Justice Project and Undergraduate Student Government, Amici Curiae (NO. 58389) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2645 Mark LEWIS and Dennis Winslow; Saundra Heath and Clarita Alicia Toby; Craig Hutchison and Chris Lodewyks; Maureen Kilian and Cindy Meneghin; Sarah and Suyin Lael; Marilyn Maneely and Diane Marini; and Karen and Marcye Nicholoson-McFadden, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Gwendolyn L. HARRIS, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Human Services; Clifton R. Lacy, in his official capacity as the commissioner of the New, 2006 WL 6850896, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (N.J. Oct 06, 2006) Brief of Legal Momentum as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants (NO. 58389) " HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2646 Mark LEWIS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Gwendolyn L. HARRIS, et al., Defendants-Appellees., 2006 WL 6850898, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (N.J. Jan 30,
2006) Reply Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellants (NO. 58389) " HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2647 Mark LEWIS and Denis Winslow; Saundra Heath and Clarita Alicia Toby;* Craig Hutchison and Chris Lodewyks; Maureen Kilian and Cindy Meneghin; Sarah and Suyin Lael; Marilyn Mane*ely and Diane Marini; and Karen and Marcye Nicholson-McFadden, Plaintiffs, v. Gwendolyn L. HARRIS, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Human Services; Clifton R. Lacy, in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of, 2006 WL 6850901, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (N.J. Jan 09, 2006) Brief and Appendix of Amici Curiae, Clergy of New Jersey in Support of Defendants-Respondents (NO. 58389) " HN: 4 (N.E.2d) 2648 Mark LEWIS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Gwendolyn L. HARRIS, et al., Defendants-Respondents., 2006 WL 6850899, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (N.J. Jan 06, 2006) Brief and Appendix of Defendants-Respondents (NO. 389, 58) " HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2649 Mark LEWIS and Dennis Winslow; Saundra Heath and Clarita Alicia Toby; Craig Hutchison and Chris Lodewyks; Maureen Killian and Cindy Meneghin; Sarah and Suyin Lael; Marilyn Maneely and Diane Marini; and Karen and Marcye Nicholson-McFadden, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Gwendolyn HARRIS, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Human Services; Clifton R. Lacy, in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the New, 2005 WL 6735468, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (N.J. Dec 23, 2005) Brief Amici Curiae of the Anscombe Society at Princeton University (NO. A-224-03T5) " HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 2650 Mark LEWIS, and Dennis Winslow; Saundra Heath and Clarita Alicia Toby; Craig Hutchinson and Chris Lodewyks; Maureen Kilian and Cindy Meneghin; Sarah and Suyin Lael; Marilyn Maneely and Diane Marini; and Karen and Marcye Nicholson-McFadden, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Gwendolyn L. HARRIS, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Human Services; Clifton R. Lacy, in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the New, 2005 WL 6735461, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (N.J. Dec 21, 2005) Brief of Monmouth Plastics, Corp., and John M. Bonforte Sr. As Amici Curiae in Support of Defendants-Respondents (NO. 05-58389) 2651 Mark LEWIS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Gwendolyn L. HARRIS, et al., Defendants-Respondents., 2005 WL 6735472, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (N.J. Dec 21, 2005) Brief of Family Research Council as Amicus Curiase in Support of Defendants-Respondents (NO. 58389) " HN: 32,41 (N.E.2d) 2652 Mark LEWIS and Dennis Winslow; Saundra Heath and Clarita Alicia Toby; Craig Hutchinson and Chris Lodewyks; Maureen Kilian and Cindy Meneghin; Sarah and Suyin Lael; Marilyn Maneely and Diane Marini; and Karen and Marcye Nicholson-McFadden, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Gwendolyn L. HARRIS, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Human Services; Clifton R. Lacy, in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the New, 2005 WL 6735463, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (N.J. Oct 25, 2005) Brief of
Amici Curiae Human Rights Campaign, Human Rights Campaign Foundation, Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere (Colage), Family Pride Coalition, Freedom to Marry, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & ... (NO. 58389) " HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2653 Mark LEWIS and Dennis Winslow; Saundra Heath and Clarita Alicia Toby; Craig Hutchison and Chris Lodewyks; Maureen Kilian and Cindy Meneghin; Sarah and Suyin Lael; Marilyn Maneely and Diane Marini; and Karen and Marcye Nicholson-McFadden, Plaintiffs/Appellants., v. Gwendolyn L. HARRIS, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Human Services; Clifton R. Lacy, in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the New, 2005 WL 6735460, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (N.J. Oct 21, 2005) Brief of National Association of Social Workers and National Association of Social Workers New Jersey Chapter as Amici Curiae in Support of PlaintiffsAppellants (NO. 58389) " HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2654 Mark LEWIS and Dennis Winslow; Saundra Heath and Clarita Alicia Toby; Craig Hutchison and Chris Lodewyks; Maureen Kilian and Cindy Meneghin; Sarah and Suyin Lael; Marilyn Maneely and Diane Marini; and Karen and Marcye Nicholson McFadden, Plaintiffs-Appellants., v. Gwendolyn L. HARRIS, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Human Services; Clifton R. Lacy, in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the New, 2005 WL 6735462, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (N.J. Oct 21, 2005) Brief of Madeline Marzano-Lesnevich as Amicus Curiae in Support of PlaintiffsAppellants (NO. 58389) " HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2655 Mark LEWIS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Gwendolyn L. HARRIS, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Human Services, et al., Defendants-Respondents., 2005 WL 6735470, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (N.J. Oct 21, 2005) Brief of Asian Equality, Equality Federation, People for the American Way Foundation and Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force as Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants (NO. 58389) " HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2656 Mark LEWIS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Gwendolyn L. HARRIS, et al., Defendants-Respondents., 2005 WL 6960567, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (N.J. Oct 06, 2005) Brief of the Professors of the History of Marriage, Families, and the Law as Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants (NO. 58389) " HN: 33 (N.E.2d) 2657 Mark LEWIS and Dennis Winslow; Saundra Heath and Clarita Alicia Toby; Craig Hutchison and Chris Lodewyks; Maureen Killian and Cindy Meneghin; Sarah and Suyin Lael; Marilyn Maneely and Diane Marini; and Karen and Marcye Nicholson-McFadden, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Gwendolyn HARRIS, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Human Services; Clifton R. Lacy, in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the New, 2005 WL 6735471, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (N.J. Sep 2005) Brief Amicus Curiae of the Family Leader Foundation (NO. 58389) " HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d)
2658 Mark LEWIS and Dennis Winslow; Saundra Heath and Clarita Alicia Toby; Craig Hutchison and Chris Lodewyks; Maureen Kilian and Cindy Meneghin; Sarah and Suyin Lael; Marilyn Maneely and Diane Marini; and Karen and Marcye Nicholoson-McFadden, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Gwendolyn L. HARRIS, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Human Services; Clifton R. Lacy, in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the New, 2004 WL 5234680, *5234680+ (Appellate Brief) (N.J.Super.A.D. Nov 08, 2004) Brief of Legal Momentum As Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants (NO. A-2244-03T5) " HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 2659 Mark LEWIS, et. al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Gwendolyn L. HARRIS, et. al., Defendants-Respondents., 2004 WL 5456201, *5456201+ (Appellate Brief) (N.J.Super.A.D. Nov 06, 2004) Brief and Appendix of the Professors of the History of Marriage, Families, and the Law as Amici Curiae (NO. A2244-03T5) " 2660 Mark LEWIS and Dennis Winslow; Saundra Heath and Clarita Alicia Civil Action Toby; Craig Hutchison and Chris Lodewyks; Maureen Kilian and Cindy Meneghin; Sarah and Suyin Lael; Marilyn Maneely and Diane Marini; and Karen and Marcye Nicholson-Mcfadden, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Gwendolyn L. HARRIS, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Human Services; Clifton R. Lacy, in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the New, 2004 WL 5234690, *5234690+ (Appellate Brief) (N.J.Super.A.D. Nov 05, 2004) Brief of National Association of Social Workers and National Association of Social Workers New Jersey Chapter As Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants (NO. A-2244-03T5) " HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 2661 Mark LEWIS and Dennis Winslow; Saundra Heath and Clarita Alicia Toby; Craig Hutchinson and Chris Lodewyks; Maureen Kilian and Cindy Meneghin; Sarah and Suyin Lael; Marilyn Maneely and Diane Marini; and Karen and Marcye Nicholson-McFadden, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Gwendolyn L. HARRIS, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Human Services; Clifton R. Lacy, in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the New, 2004 WL 5234684, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (N.J.Super.A.D. Oct 29, 2004) Brief of Amici Curiae Human Rights Campaign, Human Rights Campaign Foundation, Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere (Colage), Family Pride Coalition, Freedom to Marry, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & ... (NO. A-2244-03T5) " HN: 15,17 (N.E.2d) 2662 Mark LEWIS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Gwendolyn L. HARRIS, et al., Defendants-Respondents., 2004 WL 5234686, *5234686+ (Appellate Brief) (N.J.Super.A.D. Sep 28, 2004) Brief of Amicus Curiae Alliance for Marriage in Support of Defendants Respondents (NO. A-2244-03T5) 2663 Mark LEWIS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Gwendolyn L. HARRIS, et al., Defendants-Respondents., 2004 WL 5234683, *5234683+ (Appellate Brief) (N.J.Super.A.D. Sep 23, 2004) Brief Amici Curiae of the New Jersey Coalition to Preserve and Protect Marriage, the New Jersey Family Policy Council, the New Jersey Catholic Conference, and Mr. and Mrs. David C. Heslington
(NO. A-2244-03T5) " HN: 31,32,34 (N.E.2d) 2664 Mark LEWIS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Gwendolyn L. HARRIS, et al., Defendants-Respondents., 2004 WL 5234687, *5234687+ (Appellate Brief) (N.J.Super.A.D. Sep 23, 2004) Brief Amici Curiae of the New Jersey Coalition to Preserve and Protect Marriage, the New Jersey Family Policy Council, the New Jersey Catholic Conference, and Mr. and Mrs. David C. Heslington (NO. A-2244-03T5) " HN: 31,32,34 (N.E.2d) 2665 Mark LEWIS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Gwendolyn L. HARRIS, et al., Defendants -Respondents,, 2004 WL 5234688, *5234688+ (Appellate Brief) (N.J.Super.A.D. Sep 23, 2004) Brief of Amicus Curiae the Family Research Council in Support of Defendants-Respondents (NO. A-2244-03T5) " 2666 Mark LEWIS and Dennis Winslow; Saundra Heath and Clarita Alicia Toby; Craig Hutchison and Chris Lodewyks; Maureen Kilian and Cindy Cindy Meneghin; Sarah and Suyin Lael; Marilyn Maneely and Diane Marini; and Karen and Marcye Nicholson-McFadden, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Gwendolyn L. HARRIS, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Human Services; Clifton R. Lacy, in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the New, 2004 WL 5234685, *5234685+ (Appellate Brief) (N.J.Super.A.D. Sep 22, 2004) Brief and Appendix of Amici Curiae Monmouth Rubber & Plastics, Corp., and John M. Bonforte Sr. in Support of DefendantsRespondents (NO. A-2244-03T5) 2667 Mark LEWIS and Dennis Winslow; Saundra Heath and Clarita Alicia Toby; Craig Hutchison and Chris Lodewyks; Maureen Kilian and Cindy Meneghin; Sarah and Suyin Lael; Marilyn Maneely and Diane Marini; and Karen and Marcye Nicholson-McFadden, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Gwendolyn L. HARRIS, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Human Services; Clifton R. Lacy, in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the New, 2004 WL 5234681, *5234681+ (Appellate Brief) (N.J.Super.A.D. Sep 21, 2004) Reply Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellants (NO. A-2244-03T5) " HN: 32,34 (N.E.2d) 2668 Mark LEWIS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Gwendolyn L. HARRIS, et al., Defendants-Respondents., 2004 WL 5234679, *5234679+ (Appellate Brief) (N.J.Super.A.D. Sep 02, 2004) Brief and Appendix of DefendantsRespondents (NO. A-2244-03T5) HN: 34,42 (N.E.2d) 2669 Mark LEWIS and Dennis Winslow; Saundra Heath and Clarita Alicia Toby; Craig Hutchison and Chris Lodewyks; Maureen Kilian and Cindy Meneghin; Sarah and Suyin Lael; Marilyn Maneely and Diane Marini; and Karen and Marcye Nicholson-McFadden, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Gwendolyn L. HARRIS, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Human Services; Clifton R. Lacy, in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the New, 2004 WL 5234678, *5234678+ (Appellate Brief) (N.J.Super.A.D. Jun 04, 2004) Plaintiffs-Appellants' Brief (NO. A-2244-03T5) " HN: 15,17,36 (N.E.2d)
2670 Daniel HERNANDEZ and Nevin Cohen, Lauren Abrams and Donna FreemanTweed, Michael Elsasser and Douglas Robinson, Mary Jo Kennedy and Jo-Ann Shain, and Daniel Reyes and Curtis Woolbright, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Victor R. ROBLES, in His Official Capacity as City Clerk of the City of New York, Defendant-Respondent., 2006 WL 1930150, *1930150+ (Appellate Brief) (N.Y. May 04, 2006) Brief for the Amicus Curiae New York State Conservative Party HN: 37 (N.E.2d) 2671 Sylvia SAMUELS and Diane Gallagher, Heather McDonnell and Carol Snyder, Amy Tripi and Jeanne Vitale, Wade Nichols and Harng Shen, Michael Hahn and Paul Muhonen, Daniel J. O'Donnell and John Banta, Cynthia Bink and Ann Pachner, Kathleen Tuggle and Tonja Alvis, Regina Cicchetti and Susan Zimmer, Alice J. Muniz and Oneida Garcia, Ellen Dreher and Laura Collins, John Wessel and William O'Connor, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH and the State of, 2006 WL 1930165, *1930165+ (Appellate Brief) (N.Y. May 01, 2006) Reply Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellants " 2672 Daniel HERNANDEZ and Nevin Cohen, Lauren Abrams and Donna FreemanTweed, Michael Elsasser and Douglas Robinson, Mary Jo Kennedy and Jo-Ann Shain, and Daniel Reyes and Curtis Woolbright, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Victor L. ROBLES, in his official capacity as City Clerk of the City of New York, Defendant-Respondent., 2006 WL 1930142, *1930142+ (Appellate Brief) (N.Y. Apr 30, 2006) Reply Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellants " HN: 31,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2673 Jason SEYMOUR and Jason Hungerford; Susan Martin and Kristine Shaw; Margot Chiuten and Shawna Black; James Pelton and Jason Thornton; Patricia Flery and Elizabeth Cohen; Patricia Butler and Marjorie Parker; Sandra Fentiman and Alice Kenly; Todd Heron and Ronald Campbell; Lisa Bushlow and Nina Panzer; Teresa Niedzialek and Nancy Chapman; anne Bell and Elisabeth Lindsay; Brenda Marston and Sarah Simpkins; John Houston and Dave Hebron; Deborah Vogel and Silvia, 2006 WL 1930172, *1930172+ (Appellate Brief) (N.Y. Apr 28, 2006) Plaintiffs - Appellants' Reply Brief " 2674 Daniel HERNANDEZ and Nevin Cohen, Lauren Abrams and Donna FreemanTweed, Michael Elsasser and Douglas Robinson, Mary Jo Kennedy and Jo-Ann Shain, and Daniel Reyes and Curtis Woolbright, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Victor L. ROBLES, in his official capacity as City Clerk of the City of New York, Defendant-Respondent., 2006 WL 1930152, *1930152+ (Appellate Brief) (N.Y. Apr 22, 2006) Amicus Brief of Concerned Women for America and New York Family Policy Council " HN: 31,32,34 (N.E.2d) 2675 Sylvia SAMUELS and Diane Gallagher, Heather McDonnell and Carol Snyder, Amy Tripi and Jeanne Vitale, Wade Nichols and Harng Shen, Michael Hahn and Paul Muhonen, Daniel J. O'Donnell and John Banta, Cynthia Bink and Ann Pachner, Kathleen Tuggle and Tonja Alvis, Regina Cicchetti and Susan Zimmer, Alice J. Muniz and Oneida Garcia, Ellen Dreher and Laura Collins, John Wessel and William O'Connor, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE NEW YORK STATE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH and the State of, 2006 WL 1930163, *1930163+ (Appellate Brief) (N.Y. Apr 22, 2006) Amicus Brief of Concerned Women for America and New York Family Policy Council " HN: 31,32,34 (N.E.2d) 2676 Daniel HERNANDEZ and Nevin Cohen, Lauren Abrams and Donna FreemanTweed, Michael Elsasser and Douglas Robinson, Mary Jo Kennedy and Jo-Ann Shain, and Daniel Reyes and Curtis Woolbright, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Victor L. ROBLES, in his official capacity as City Clerk of the City of New York, Defendant-Respondent; Sylvia SAMUELS and Diane Gallagher, Heather McDonnell and Carol Snyder, Amy Tripi and Jeanne Vitale, Wade Nichols and Haring Shen, Michael Hahn and Paul, 2006 WL 1930154, *1930154+ (Appellate Brief) (N.Y. Apr 20, 2006) Brief of Professors of History and Family Law as Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants " 2677 Sylvia SAMUELS, Diane Gallagher, Heather McConnell, Carol Snyder, Amy Tripi, Jeanne Vitale, Wade Nichols, Harng Shen, Michael Hahn, Paul Muhonen, Daniel J. O'Donnell, John Banta, Cynthia Bink, Ann Pachner, Kathleen Tuggle, Tonja Alvis, Regina Cicchetti, Susan Zimmer, Alice J. Muniz, Oneida Garcia, Ellen Dreher, Laura Collins, John Wessel, William O'Connor, Michelle CherrySlack, and Montel Cherry-Slack, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE NEW YORK STATE, 2006 WL 1930156, *1930156+ (Appellate Brief) (N.Y. Apr 20, 2006) Brief of Family Research Council as Amicus Curiae in Support of Defendants-Respondents " HN: 31,33 (N.E.2d) 2678 Daniel HERNANDEZ and Nevin Cohen, Lauren Abrams and Donna FreemanTweed, Michael Elsasser and Douglas Robinson, Mary Jo Kennedy and Jo-Ann Shain, and Daniel Reyes and Curtis Woolbright, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Victor L. ROBLES, in his official capacity as City Clerk of the City of New York, Defendant-Respondent; Sylvia Samuels and Diane Gallagher, Heather McDonnell and Carol Snyder, Amy Tripi and Jeanne Vitale, Wade Nichols and Harng Shen, Michael Hahn and Paul Muhonen,, 2006 WL 1930155, *1930155+ (Appellate Brief) (N.Y. Apr 18, 2006) Brief of Civil Rights Groups AntiDefamation League, Asian American Justice Center, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Asian Equality, Equality Federation, National Center for Lesbian ... " 2679 Daniel HERNANDEZ and Nevin Cohen, Lauren Abrams and Donna FreemanTweed, Michael Elsasser and Douglas Robinson, Mary Jo Kennedy and Jo-Ann Shain, and Daniel Reyes and Curtis Woolbright, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. Victor L. ROBLES, in his official capacity as City Clerk of the City of New York, Defendant - Respondent; Sylvia Samuels, Diane Gallagher, Heather McDonnell, Carol Snyder, May Tripi, Jeanne Vitale, Wade Nichols, Harng Shen, Michael Hahn, Paul Muhonen, Daniel J., 2006 WL 1930147, *1930147+ (Appellate Brief) (N.Y. Apr 14, 2006) Brief of Amici Curiae the Association to Benefit Children, The Aids Center of Queens County, the Child Welfare Fund, the National Association of Social Workers, the National Association of Social ... "
2680 Sylvia SAMUELS, Diane Gallagher, Heather McDonnell, Carol Snyder, Amy Trip, Jeanne Vitale, Wade Nichols, Harng Shen, Michael Hahn, Paul Muhonen, Daniel J. O'Donnell, John Banta, Cynthia Bink, Ann Pachner, Kathleen Tuggle, Tonja Alvis, Regina Cicchetti, Susan Zimmer, Alice J. Muniz, Oneida Garcia, Ellen Dreher, Laura Collins, John Wessel, William O'Connor, Michelle CherrySlack, and Montel Cherry-Slack, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE NEW YORK STATE, 2006 WL 1930158, *1930158+ (Appellate Brief) (N.Y. Apr 13, 2006) Brief of Amici Curiae James Q. Wilson, Et Al., Legal and Family Scholars in Support of Defendants-Respondents " 2681 Daniel HERNANDEZ and Nevin Cohen, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Victor L. ROBLES, in his official capacity as City Clerk of the City of New York, Defendant-Respondent; Sylvia Samuels and Diane Gallagher, et al., PlaintiffsAppellants, v. The New York State Department of Health and the State of New York, Defendants-Respondents; In the Matter of the Application of Elissa Kane, et al., Petitioners-Appellants, For a Judgment Pursuant to, 2006 WL 1930143, *1930143+ (Appellate Brief) (N.Y. Apr 12, 2006) Brief of Amici Curiae new York Law Professors Alicia Ouellette, Stephen Clark, Hon. Stewart F. Hancock, Jr., Hon. Howard A. Levine,%n*%n Burt Neuborne, David D. Siegel, Katheryn D. Katz, Nan D. ... " HN: 32,33,34 (N.E.2d) 2682 Daniel HERNANDEZ and Nevin Cohen, Lauren Abrams and Donna FreemanTweed, Michael Elsasser and Douglas Robinson, Mary Joe Kennedy and Jo-Ann Shain, and Daniel Reyes and Curtis Woolbright, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Victor L. ROBLES, in his official capacity as City Clerk of the City of New York, Defendant-Respondent., 2006 WL 1930151, *1930151+ (Appellate Brief) (N.Y. Apr 12, 2006) Brief of the City Action Coalition as Amicus Curiae in Support of Defendant-Respondent 2683 Sylvia SAMUELS, Diane Gallagher, Heather McDonnell, Carol Snyder, Amy Tripi, Jeanne Vitale, Wade Nichols, Haring Shen, Michael Hahn, Paul Muhonen, Daniel J. O'Donnell, John Banta, Cynthia Bink, ann Pachner, Kathleen Tuggle, Tonja Alvis, Regina Cicchetti, Susan Zimmer, Alice J. Muniz, Oneida Garcia, Ellen Dreher, Laura Collins, John Wessel, William O'Connor, Michelle CherrySlack, and Montel Cherry-Slack, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE NEW YORK STATE, 2006 WL 1930157, *1930157+ (Appellate Brief) (N.Y. Apr 12, 2006) Brief of Amicus Curiae United Families International " 2684 Sylvia SAMUELS and Diane Gallagher, Heather McDonnell and Carol Snyder, Amy Tripi and Jeanne Vitale, Wade Nichols and Harng Hen, Michael Hahn and Paul Muhonen, Daniel J. O'Donnell and John Banta, Cynthia Bink and Ann Pancher, Kathleen Tuggle and Tonja Alvis, Regina Cicchetti and Susan Zimmer, Alice J. Muniz and Onedia Garcia, Ellen Dreher and Laura Collins, John Wessel and William O'Connor, Plainiffs-Appellants, v. THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH and the State of New, 2006 WL 1930164, *1930164+ (Appellate Brief) (N.Y. Apr 12, 2006) Brief of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders As Amicus Curiae " HN: 31,32,36 (N.E.2d) 2685 Daniel HERNANDEZ and Nevin Cohen, Lauren Abrams and Donna Freeman-
Tweed, Michael Elsasser and Douglas Robinson, Mary Jo Kennedy and Jo-Ann Shain, and-Daniel Reyes and Curtis Woolbright, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Victor L. ROBLES, in his official capacity as City Clerk of the City of New York, Defendant-Respondent. Sylvia Samuels and Diane Gallagher, Heather McDonnell and Caroi. Snyder, Amy Tripi and Jeanne Vitale, Wade Nichols and Harng Shen, Michael Hahn and Paul Muhonen,, 2006 WL 1930145, *1930145+ (Appellate Brief) (N.Y. Apr 10, 2006) Brief for Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellants " 2686 Sylvia SAMUELS, Diane Gallagher, Heather McDonnell, Carol Snyder, Amy Tripi, Jeanne Vitale, Wade Nichols, Harng Shen, Michael Hahn, Paul Muhonen, Daniel J. O'donnell, John Banta, Cynthia Bink, Ann Pachner, Kathleen Tuggle, Tonja Alvis, Regina Cicchetti, Susan Zimmer, Alice J. Muniz, Oneida Garcia, Ellen Dreher, Laura Collins, John Wessel, William O'Connor, Michelle CherrySlack, and Montel Cherry-Slack, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE NEW YORK STATE, 2006 WL 1930167, *1930167+ (Appellate Brief) (N.Y. Apr 03, 2006) Brief for Respondents State of New York and Department of Health and for Attorney General As Intervenor in Hernandez " 2687 Daniel HERNANDEZ and Nevin Cohen, Lauren Abrams and Donna FreemanTweed, Michael Elsasser and Douglas Robinson, Mary Jo Kennedy and Jo-Ann Shain, and Daniel Reyes and Curtis Woolbright, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Victor L. ROBLES, in his official capacity as City Clerk of the City of New York, Defendant-Respondent., 2006 WL 1930141, *1930141+ (Appellate Brief) (N.Y. Mar 30, 2006) Respondent's Brief " HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 2688 Daniel HERNANDEZ and Nevin Cohen, Lauren Abrams and Donna FreemanTweed, Michael Elsasser and Douglas Robinson, Mary Jo Kennedy and Jo-Ann Shain, and Daniel Reyes And Curtis Woolbright, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Victor L. ROBLES, in his official capacity as City Clerk of the City of New York, Defendant-Respondent., 2006 WL 1930153, *1930153+ (Appellate Brief) (N.Y. Mar 13, 2006) Brief of The New York State Catholic Conference as Amicus Curiae in Support of Defendant-Respondent " HN: 31,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2689 Jason SEYMOUR and Jason Hungerford; Susan Martin and Kristine Shaw; Margot chiuten and Shawna Black; James Pelton and Jason Thornton; Patricia Flery and Elizabeth Cohen; Patricia Butler and Marjorie Parker; Sandra Fentiman and Alice Kenly; Todd Heron and Ronald Campbell; Lisa Bushlow and Nina Panzer; Teresa Niedzialek and Nancy Chapman; Anne Bell and Elisabeth Lindsay; Brenda Marston and Sarah Simpkins; John Houston and Dave Hebron; Deborah Vogel and Silvia, 2006 WL 1930171, *1930171+ (Appellate Brief) (N.Y. Mar 11, 2006) Plaintiffs - Appellants' Brief " HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 2690 Sylvia SAMUELS and Diane Gallagher, Heather McDonnell and Carol Snyder, Amy Tripi and Jeanne Vitale, Wade Nichols and Harng Shen, Michael Hahn and Paul Muhonen, Daniel J. O'Donnell and John Banta, Cynthia Bink and Ann Pachner, Kathleen Tuggle and Tonja Alvis, Regina Cicchetti and Susan Zimmer, Alice J. Muniz and Oneida Garcia, Ellen Dreher and Laura Collins, John Wessel and William O'Connor, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE NEW YORK STATE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH and the State of, 2006 WL 1930168, *1930168+ (Appellate Brief) (N.Y. Mar 03, 2006) Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellants " HN: 33,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2691 In the Matter of Elissa KANE, Lynne Lekakis, Robert Barnes and George Jurgsatis, Petitioners-Appellants, v. John MARSOLAIS, Albany City Clerk, and the New York State Health Department, Respondents., 2006 WL 1930170, *1930170+ (Appellate Brief) (N.Y. Mar 02, 2006) Brief for PetitionersAppellants " HN: 17,22 (N.E.2d) 2692 Daniel HERNANDEZ and Nevin Cohen, Lauren Abrams and Donna FreemanTweed, Michael Elsasser and Douglas Robinson, Mary Jo Kennedy and Jo-Ann Shain, and Daniel Reyes and Curtis Woolbright, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Victor L. ROBLES, in his official capacity as City Clerk of the City of New York, Defendant-Respondent., 2006 WL 1930140, *1930140+ (Appellate Brief) (N.Y. Feb 06, 2006) Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellants " HN: 17,33,36 (N.E.2d) 2693 Robert HEBEL, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Jason WEST, in his official capacity as Mayor of New Paltz, Respondent-Appellant, Robert HEBEL, PetitionerRespondent-Appellant, v. VILLAGE OF NEW PALTZ, Jason West, in his official capacity, and Michael Zierler, in his official capacity, RespondentsAppellants-Respondents, Rebecca ROTZLER, in her official capacity, Julia Walsh, in her official capacity, Respondents., 2005 WL 5716276, *5716276+ (Appellate Brief) (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept. Jun 15, 2005) Corrected Reply Brief of Appellants Village of New Paltz, Jason West and Michael Zierler (NO. 97432, 97433) " HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 2694 State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael CARSWELL, DefendantAppellant., 2006 WL 2351196, *2351196+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio Jul 17, 2006) Brief of Amicus Curiae Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association in Support of Plaintiff-Appellee State of Ohio (NO. 2006-0151) 2695 State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael CARSWELL, DefendantAppellant., 2006 WL 2351198, *2351198+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio Jul 17, 2006) Merit Brief of Amicus Curiae the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office, Filed on Behalf of Plaintiff-Appellee, the State of Ohio (NO. 2006-0151) 2696 State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael CARSWELL, DefendantAppellant., 2006 WL 2351200, *2351200+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio Jul 13, 2006) Brief of the State of Ohio (NO. 2006-0151) 2697 CITY OF CLEVELAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Randall VOIES, DefendantAppellee., 2005 WL 5900650, *5900650+ (Appellate Brief) (Ohio App. 8 Dist. Jun 24, 2005) Brief of Appellant (NO. 086317) HN: 31 (N.E.2d) 2698 OUTDOOR MEDIA DIMENSIONS INCORPORATED, Petitioner, Petitioner on Review, v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Respondent, Respondent on Review. Outdoor Media Dimensions Incorporated, Petitioner, Petitioner on Review, v. Driver and Motor Vehicle Division (DMV), Respondent, Respondent on Review. Outdoor Media Dimensions Incorporated, Petitioner, Petitioner on Review, v. Driver and Motor Vehicle Division (DMV), Respondent, Respondent
on Review. Outdoor Media, 2006 WL 6817418, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Or. May 25, 2006) Respondents on Review's Petition for Reconsideration (NO. S49978, S50003, S50007, S50044, S50458) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 2699 Mary LI and Rebecca Kennedy; Stephen Knox, M.D. and Eric Warshaw, M.D.; Kelly Burke and Dolores Doyle; Donna Potter and Pamela Moen; Dominick Vetri and Douglas Dewitt; Sally Sheklow and Nina Korican; Walter Frankel and Nina Korican; Walter Frankel and Curtis Kiefer; Julie Williams and Coleen Belisle; Basic Rights Oregon; and American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, PlaintiffsRespondents, Cross-Appellants, MULTNOMAH COUNTY, IntervenorPlaintiff-Respondent,, 2004 WL 6065833, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Or. Nov 04, 2004) Plaintiffs-Respondents and Cross-Appellants' Combined Reply Brief On Cross-Appeal (NO. S51612) " HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2700 Mary LI and Rebecca Kennedy; Stephen Knox, M.D. and Eric Warshaw, M.D.; Kelly Burke and Dolores Doyle; Donna Potter and Pamela Moen; Dominick Vetri and Douglas Dewitt; Sally Sheklow and Enid Lefton; Walter Frankel and Curtis Keifer; Julie Williams and Coleen Belisle; Basic Rights Oregon; and American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, Plaintiffs-Respondents, Cross-Appellants, MULTNOMAH COUNTY, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Respondent, Cross-Appellant, v., 2004 WL 6065831, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Or. Oct 25, 2004) State Defendants'-Appellants', Cross-Respondents' Answering Brief on the Merits (NO. S51612) " HN: 2,6 (N.E.2d) 2701 Mary LI and Rebecca Kennedy; Stephen Knox, M.D., and Eric Warshaw, M.D.; Kelly Burke and Dolores Doyle; Donna Potter and Pamela Moen; Dominick Vetri and Douglas Dewitt; Sally Sheklow and Enid Lefton; Irene Farrera and Nina Korican; Walter Frankel and Curtis Kiefer; Julie Williams and Coleen Belisle; Basic Rights Oregon, an Oregon not-for-profit corporation; and American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, an Oregon not-for-profit corporation,, 2004 WL 6079887, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Or. Oct 25, 2004) IntervenorDefendants-Appellants, Cross-Respondents Defense of Marriage Coalition, et al.'s Response Brief (NO. S51612) " HN: 17 (N.E.2d) 2702 Mary LI and Rebecca Kennedy; Stephen Knox, M.D. and Eric Warshaw, M.D.; Kelly Burke and Dolores Doyle; Donna Potter and Pamela Moen; Dominick Vetri and Douglas Dewitt; Sally Sheklow and Enid Lefton; Irene Farrera and Nina Korican; Walter Frankel and Curtis Kiefer; Julie Williams and Coleen Belisle; Basic Rights Oregon; and American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, PlaintiffsRespondents, Cross-Appellants, Multnomah County, IntervenorPlaintiff-Respondent,, 2004 WL 6079889, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Or. Oct 25, 2004) Plaintiffs-Respondents and Cross-Appellants' Combined Answering Brief on the Merits (NO. SCS51612) " HN: 33,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2703 Mary LI and Rebecca Kennedy; Stephen Knox, M.D., and Eric Warshaw, M.D.; Kelly Burke and Dolores Doyle; Donna Potter and Pamela Moen; Dominick Vetri and Douglas Dewitt; Sally Sheklow and Enid Lefton; Irene Farrera and Nina Korican; Walter Frankel and Curtis Kiefer; Julie Williams and Coleen Belisle; Basic Rights Oregon; and American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, Plaintiff-
Respondents, Cross-Appellants, MULTNOMAH COUNTY, IntervenorPlaintiff-Respondent,, 2004 WL 6065842, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Or. Oct 19, 2004) Brief of Amici Curiae the Juvenile Rights Project, Inc.; the National Association of Social Workers; the Oregon Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers; Open Adoption & Family Services, ... (NO. S51612) " HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2704 Mary LI and Rebecca Kennedy; Stephen Knox, M.D., and Eric Warshaw, M.D.; Kelly Burke and Dolores Doyle; Donna Potter and Pamela Moen; Dominick Vetri and Douglas Dewitt; Sally Sheklow and Enid Lefton; Irene Farrera and Nina Korican; Walter Frankel and Curtis Kiefer; Julie Williams and Coleen Belisle; Basic Rights Oregon; and American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, PlaintiffsRespondents, Cross-Appellants, Multnomah County, IntervenorPlaintiff-Respondent,, 2004 WL 6079900, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Or. Oct 19, 2004) Brief of Amici Curiae Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force; Vermonters for Civil Unions Legislative Defense Fund; Pride at Work, AFLCIO; Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG); ... (NO. A51612) " HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2705 Mary LI and Rebecca Kennedy; Stephen Knox, M.D., and Eric Warshaw, M.D.; Kelly Burke and Dolores Doyle; Donna Potter and Pamela Moen; Dominick Vetri and Douglas Dewitt; Sally Sheklow and Enid Lefton; Irene Farrera and Nina Korican; Walter Frankel and Curtis Kiefer; Julie Williams and Coleen Belisle; Basic Rights Oregon, an Oregon not-for-profit corporation, PlaintiffsRespondents, Cross-Appellants, MULTNOMAH COUNTY, a political subdivision of the state of, 2004 WL 6065838, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Or. Oct 14, 2004) Brief Amicus Curiae of United Families International in Support of Intervenor-Defendants-Appellants, Cross-Respondents Defense of Marriage Coalition, et al., (NO. S51612) " HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2706 Mary LI and Rebecca Kennedy; Stephen Knox, M.D., and Eric Warshaw, M.D.; Kelly Burke and Dolores Doyle; Donna Potter and Pamela Moen; Dominick Vetri and Douglas Dewitt; Sally Sheklow and Enid Lefton; Irene Farrera and Nina Korican; Walter Frankel and Curtis Kiefer; Julie Williams and Coleen Belisle; Basic Rights Oregon; and American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, PlaintiffsRespondents, Cross-Appellants, Multnomah County, IntervenorPlaintiff-Respondent,, 2004 WL 6079908, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Or. Oct 14, 2004) Brief of Amici Curiae American Friends Service Committee, National Coalition of and American Nuns, Unitarian Universalist Association, Alliance of Baptists, Joan L. Beck, Daniel E.H. Bryant, Barbara ... (NO. S51612) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2707 Mary LI and Rebecca Kennedy Stephen Knox, M.D. and Eric Warshaw, M.D.; Kelly Burke and Dolores Doyle; Donna Potter and Pamela Moen; Dominick Vetri and Douglas Dewitt; Sally Sheklow and Enid Lefton; Irene Farrera and Nina Korican; Walter Frankel and Curtis Keifer; Julie Williams and Coleen Belisle; Basic Rights Oregon; and American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, PlaintiffRespondents, Cross-Appellants, MULTNOMAH COUNTY, Intervenor-
Plaintiff-Respondent,, 2004 WL 6065839, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Or. Oct 13, 2004) Brief Amicus Curiae of Stronger Families for Oregon (NO. SCS51612) " HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2708 Mary LI and Rebecca Kennedy; Stephen Knox, M.D., and Eric Warshaw, M.D.; Kelly Burke and Dolores Vetri and Douglas Dewitt; Sally Sheklow and Enid Lefton; Irene Farrera and Nina Korican; Walter Frankel and Curtis Keifer; Julie Williams and Coleen Belisle; Basic Rights Oregon; and American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon Plaintiffs-Respondents, Cross-Appellants, and Petitioner on Review, Multnomah County, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Respondent, Cross-Appellant, v., 2004 WL 6079904, *1 (Appellate Brief) (Or. Oct 2004) Brief of Civil Rights and Historians Amici Curiae (NO. SCS51612) 2709 Mary LI and Rebecca Kennedy; Stephen Knox, M.D. and Eric Warshaw, M.D.; Kelly Burke and Dolores Doyle; Donna Potter and Pamela Moen; Dominick Vetri and Douglas Dewitt; Sally Sheklow and Enid Lefton; Irene Farrera and Nina Korican; Walter Frankel and Curtis Keifer; Julie Williams and Coleen Belisle; Basic Rights Oregon; and American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, PlaintiffsRespondents, Cross-Appellants, Multnomah County, IntervenorPlaintiff-Respondent,, 2004 WL 6079895, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Or. Sep 20, 2004) State Defendants'-Appellants' Opening Brief on the Merits and Responses to Questions from the Court (NO. S51612) " HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2710 Mary LI and Rebecca Kennedy; Stephen Knox, M.D., and Eric Warshaw, M.D.; Kelly Burke and Dolores Doyle; Donna Potter and Pamela Moen; Dominick Vetri and Douglas Dewitt; Sally Sheklow and Enid Lefton; Irene Farrera and Nina Korican; Walter Frankel and Curtis Kiefer; Julie Williams and Coleen Belisle; Basic Rights Oregon, an Oregon not-for-profit corporation; and American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, an Oregon not-for-profit corporation, Farrera, 2004 WL 6079897, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Or. Sep 20, 2004) IntervenorDefendants-Appellants, Cross-Respondents Defense of Marriage Coalition, et al.'s Opening Brief (NO. A51612) " HN: 2,4 (N.E.2d) 2711 Mary LI and Rebecca Kennedy; Stephen Knox, M.D. and Eric Warshaw, M.D.; Kelly Burke and Dolores Doyle; Donna Potter and Pamela Moen; Dominick Vetri and Douglas Dewitt; Sally Sheklow and Enid Lefton; Irene Farrera and Nina Korican; Walter Frankel and Curtis Kiefer; Julie Williams and Coleen Belisle; Basic Rights Oregon; and American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, Multnomah, Plaintiffs-Respondents, Cross-Appellants, Multnomah County,, 2004 WL 6079899, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Or. Sep 20, 2004) Plaintiffs-Respondents and Cross-Appellants' Opening Brief on Cross-Appeal and Appendix (NO. A51612) " HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2712 William DEVLIN, Nancy Devlin, Mary Campbell, William Free, Dottie Free, Rev. Dave Miller and Esther Miller, Appellees/Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, Appellant/Defendant., 2003 WL 23515738, *23515738+ (Appellate Brief) (Pa. Oct 08, 2003) Reply Brief of Appellant (NO. 43EAP2003)
2713 William DEVLIN, Nancy Devlin, Mary Campbell, William Free, Dottie Free, Rev. Dave Miller and Esther Miller, Appellees/Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, Appellant/Defendant., 2003 WL 23515739, *23515739+ (Appellate Brief) (Pa. Oct 08, 2003) Brief of Appellant (NO. 43EAP2003) 2714 Margaret R. CHAMBERS, Plaintiff, v. Cassandra B. ORMISTON, Defendant., 2007 WL 6149063, *6149063+ (Appellate Brief) (R.I. Aug 31, 2007) Reply Brief of Amicus Curiae Christopher F. Young (NO. 2006-340) 2715 Margaret R. CHAMBERS, Plaintiff, v. Cassandra B. ORMISTON, Defendant., 2007 WL 6149065, *6149065+ (Appellate Brief) (R.I. Aug 31, 2007) Reply Brief of Amici Curiae Family Research Council and Reverend Lyle Mook (NO. 2006-340) 2716 Margaret CHAMBERS, v. Cassandra ORMISTON., 2007 WL 6149057, *6149057+ (Appellate Brief) (R.I. Aug 15, 2007) Response of Amicus Curiae State of Rhode Island (NO. 2006-0340MP) 2717 Margaret CHAMBERS, Plaintiff, v. Cassandra ORMISTON, Defendant., 2007 WL 6149053, *6149053+ (Appellate Brief) (R.I. Aug 01, 2007) Brief of Amicus Curiae Marriage Equality Rhode Island (NO. 06-340-MP) 2718 Margaret CHAMBERS, Plaintiff, v. Cassandra ORMISTON, Defendant., 2007 WL 6149056, *6149056+ (Appellate Brief) (R.I. Aug 01, 2007) Brief of Amicus Curiae Governor Donald L. Carcieri (NO. 06-340-MP) " HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 2719 Margaret R. CHAMBERS, Plaintiff, v. Cassandra B. ORMISTON, Defendant., 2007 WL 6149059, *6149059+ (Appellate Brief) (R.I. Aug 01, 2007) Brief of Amici Curiae Christopher F. Young (NO. 2006-340) " 2720 Margaret CHAMBERS, Plaintiff, v. Cassandra ORMISTON, Defendant., 2007 WL 6149068, *6149068+ (Appellate Brief) (R.I. Aug 01, 2007) Brief Amicus Curiae of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty (NO. 06-340-MP) 2721 Margaret R. CHAMBERS, Plaintiff, v. Cassandra B. ORMISTON, Defendant., 2007 WL 6149072, *6149072+ (Appellate Brief) (R.I. Aug 01, 2007) Brief of Amici Curiae Family Research Council and Reverend Lyle Mook (NO. 2006-340) " 2722 Margaret CHAMBERS, Plaintiff, v. Cassandra ORMISTON, Defendant., 2007 WL 6149060, *6149060+ (Appellate Brief) (R.I. Jul 31, 2007) Brief of Margaret Chambers (NO. 06-340-MP) 2723 Margaret CHAMBERS, Plaintiff, v. Cassandra ORMISTON, Defendant., 2007 WL 6149069, *6149069 (Appellate Brief) (R.I. Jul 26, 2007) Brief of Amicus Curiae Thomas R. Bender, Esq. (NO. 06-340-MP) " 2724 Margaret R. CHAMBERS, Plaintiff, v. Cassandra B. ORMISTON, Defendant., 2007 WL 6149071, *6149071+ (Appellate Brief) (R.I. Jul 11, 2007) Brief of Amici Curiae United Families International, Family Watch International, and Family Leader Foundation (NO. 2006-340) " HN: 31 (N.E.2d) 2725 In the Matter of the Marriage of J.B. and H.B. J.B., Petitioner, v. The State of Texas, Respondent., 2013 WL 4763644, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Tex. Sep 03,
2013) Brief Amici Curiae of American Civil Liberties Union of Texas and Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. in Support of Petitioner and Urging Reversal of the Court of Appeals (NO. 11-0024) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 2726 State of Texas, v. Angelique S. NAYLOR and Sabina Daly, Respondents., 2013 WL 4050300, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Tex. Aug 06, 2013) Brief of the Honorable Daniel H. Branch as Amicus Curiae (NO. 11-0114) HN: 41 (N.E.2d) 2727 In the Matter of the Marriage of J.B. and H.B., 2011 WL 9530586, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Tex. Dec 06, 2011) Brief Amici Curiae of Texas State Representative Warren Chisum and the Honorable Todd Staples in Support of the State of Texas (NO. 11-0024) " HN: 2,6,34 (N.E.2d) 2728 State of Texas, Petitioner, v. Angelique S. NAYLOR and Sabina Daly, Respondents., 2011 WL 9530606, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Tex. Dec 06, 2011) Brief Amici Curiae of Texas State Representative Warren Chisum and the Honorable Todd Staples in Support of the State of Texas (NO. 11-0114) " HN: 2,6,34 (N.E.2d) 2729 Vic A. GARDNER, Appellant, v. Greg ABBOTT, Attorney General of Texas, The State of Texas; and Glen Elliott, Individually Appellees., 2013 WL 2457633, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Tex.App.-Austin May 20, 2013) Reply Brief of Appellant (NO. 03-12-00680-CV) 2730 Rudolph DIGIACINTO, Appellant, v. THE RECTOR AND VISITORS OF GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY, Appellee., 2010 WL 7827735, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Va. May 2010) Brief of Amicus Curiae National Rifle Association of America (NO. 091934) HN: 31 (N.E.2d) 2731 Heather ANDERSEN and Leslie Christian, et al., Respondents, v. KING COUNTY, et al., Appellants, v. State of Washington, Appellant, Senator Val Stevens, et al., Appellants (Intervenors)., 2005 WL 901991, *901991+ (Appellate Brief) (Wash. Feb 24, 2005) Appellant Intervenors' Response to Amici Curiae Briefs (NO. 75934-1) " HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 2732 Heather ANDERSEN and Leslie Christian et al., Respondents, v. King COUNTY et al., Appellants., 2005 WL 901992, *901992+ (Appellate Brief) (Wash. Feb 23, 2005) Answer of Respondents Heather Andersen and Leslie Christian Etal. to Briefs of Amici Curiae (NO. 75934-1) " HN: 37 (N.E.2d) 2733 Heather ANDERSEN and Leslie Christian, et al. Respondents, v. KING COUNTY, et al. Appellants; Celia Castle and Brenda Bauer et al., Plaintiffs, v. State of Washington, Defendant., 2005 WL 723808, *723808+ (Appellate Brief) (Wash. Feb 15, 2005) Corrected Brief of Respondents Castle, et al. (NO. 75934-1) " HN: 32,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2734 Heather ANDERSEN, et al., Respondents, v. KING COUNTY, et al., Appellant, v. State of Washington, Appellant, Senator Val Stevens, et al., Intervenor Appellants; Cecelia Castle, et al., Respondents, v. State of Washington, Appellant., 2005 WL 723804, *723804+ (Appellate Brief) (Wash. Feb 14, 2005) Amicus Curiae Brief of Elder Rights Organizations in Support of
Respondents/Plaintiffs (NO. 75934-1, 75956-1) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 2735 Heather ANDERSEN, et al., Respondents, v. KING COUNTY, et al., Appellants; Cecelia Castle, et al., Respondents, v. State of Washington, Appellant., 2005 WL 723806, *723806+ (Appellate Brief) (Wash. Feb 14, 2005) Brief Amicus Curiae of Marriage Law Foundation in Support of Appellants (NO. 75934-1, 75956-1) 2736 Heather ANDERSEN and Leslie Christian el al., Respondents, v. KING COUNTY el al., Appellants; Celia Castle and Brenda Bauer et al., Respondents, v. State of Washington, Appellant., 2005 WL 723812, *723812+ (Appellate Brief) (Wash. Feb 14, 2005) Amici Curiae Brief of Labor Organizations American Federation of Teachers, Washington; Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, Seattle Chapter; Coalition of Labor Union Women, Puget Sound Chapter; ... (NO. 75934-1) " HN: 33,36 (N.E.2d) 2737 Heather ANDERSEN and Leslie Christian, et al., Respondents, v. KING COUNTY, et al., Appellants; Gelia Castle and Brenda Bauer et al., Respondents, v. State of Washington, Appellant., 2005 WL 723813, *723813+ (Appellate Brief) (Wash. Feb 14, 2005) Brief of Amici Curiae Multifaith Works Religious Coalition for Equality, and Washington Faith Communities (NO. 75934-1) " HN: 13,17 (N.E.2d) 2738 Heather ANDERSON, et al., Respondents, v. KING COUNTY, et al., Appellants, v. State of Washington, Appellant, v. Senator Val Stevens, et al., Intervener Appellants; Celia Castle, et al., Respondents, v. State of Washington, Appellant., 2005 WL 901980, *901980+ (Appellate Brief) (Wash. Feb 14, 2005) Brief of Amicus Curiae American Center for Law & Justice (NO. 75934-1) HN: 32,34 (N.E.2d) 2739 Heather ANDERSEN and Leslie Christian, et al., Respondents, v. KING COUNTY, et al., Appellants,. Celia Castle and Brenda Bauer, et al., Respondents, v. State of Washington, Appellant., 2005 WL 901982, *901982+ (Appellate Brief) (Wash. Feb 14, 2005) Amicus Curiae Brief of Children's Rights Organizations in Support of Respondents (NO. 75934-1) " 2740 Heather ANDERSEN and Leslie Christian, et al., Respondents, v. KING COUNTY, et al., Appellants, v. State of Washington, Appellant, Senator Val Stevens, et al., Appellants (Intervenors)., 2005 WL 901983, *901983 (Appellate Brief) (Wash. Feb 14, 2005) Brief of Amicus Curiae Families Northwest (NO. 75934-1) " 2741 Heather ANDERSEN and Leslie Christian, et al., Respondents, v. KING COUNTY et al., Appellants; Celia Castle and Brenda Bauer et al., Respondents, v. State of Washington, Appellant., 2005 WL 901985, *901985+ (Appellate Brief) (Wash. Feb 14, 2005) Amic Curiae Brief of Women's Organizationis in Support of Respondents (NO. 75934-1) " HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 2742 Heather ANDERSEN and Leslie Christian et al., Respondents, v. KING COUNTY et al., Appellants. Celia Castle and Brenda Bauer et al., Respondents, v. State of Washington, Appellant., 2005 WL 6522700, *6522700+ (Appellate
Brief) (Wash. Feb 07, 2005) Amici Curiae Brief of Legal Marriage Alliance of Washington, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, and Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force (NO. 75934-1, 75956-1) " 2743 Heather ANDERSEN, et al., Respondents, v. KING COUNTY, et al., Appellants, v. State of Washington, Appellant, Senator Val Stevens, et al., Intervenor Appellants; Cecelia Castle, et al., Respondents, v. State of Washington, Appellant., 2005 WL 723815, *723815+ (Appellate Brief) (Wash. Jan 10, 2005) Reply Brief of Appellant State of Washington (NO. 75934-1, 75956-1) 2744 Heather ANDERSEN and Leslie Christian, et al., Respondents, v. King COUNTY, et al., Appellants, v. State of Washington, Appellant, Senator Val Stevens, et al., Appellants (Intervenors)., 2005 WL 723826, *723826+ (Appellate Brief) (Wash. Jan 10, 2005) Intervenor's Reply Brief (NO. 75934-1) " HN: 31,34 (N.E.2d) 2745 Heather ANDERSEN, et al., Respondents, v. KING COUNTY, et al., Appellants, v. State of Washington, Appellant, Senator Val Stevens, et al., Intervenor Appellants. Cecelia Castle, et al, Respondents, v. State of Washington, Appellant., 2005 WL 723827, *723827+ (Appellate Brief) (Wash. Jan 10, 2005) Reply Brief of Appellant State of Washington (NO. 75934-1, 75956-1) 2746 Heather ANDERSEN and Leslie Christian et al, Respondents, v. KING COUNTY et al., Appellants; Celia Castle and Brenda Bauer et al., Respondents, v. State of Washington, Appellant., 2005 WL 723807, *723807 (Appellate Brief) (Wash. 2005) Brief of Amici Curiae Pride Foundation; Seattle Men's Chorus/ Seattle Women's Chorus; Seamec; Tacoma United for Fairness; Equal Rights Washington; Inland Northwest Equality; Outkitsap; Spokame Aids ... (NO. 75934-1) 2747 Heather ANDERSEN and Leslie Christian, et al. Respondents, v. KING COUNTY, et al. Appellants, Celia Castle and Brenda Bauer, et al., Plaintiffs, v. State of Washington, Defendant., 2004 WL 3155215, *3155215+ (Appellate Brief) (Wash. Nov 29, 2004) Brief of Respondents Castle, et Al. (NO. 75934-1) " HN: 32,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2748 Heather ANDERSEN and Leslie Christian. et al, Respondents, v. KING COUNTY, et al. Appellant, v. State of Washigton, Appellant, v. Senator Val Stevens, et al Appellant (Intervenor)., 2004 WL 3155214, *3155214+ (Appellate Brief) (Wash. Nov 24, 2004) Brief of Respondents (NO. 75934-1) " HN: 33 (N.E.2d) 2749 Heather ANDERSEN and Leslie Christian, et al., Respondents, v. KING COUNTY, et al., Appellants, v. State of Washington, Appellant, Senator Val Stevens, et al., Appellants (Intervenors)., 2004 WL 3029909, *3029909+ (Appellate Brief) (Wash. Oct 18, 2004) Brief of Intervenors (NO. 75934-1) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 2750 Heather ANDERSEN and Leslie Christian, et al, Respondents, v. KING COUNTY, et al. State of Washington Senator Val Stevens, et al., Appellants., 2004 WL 3029908, *3029908+ (Appellate Brief) (Wash. Oct 15, 2004) Brief of
Appellant King County (NO. 75934-1, 75956-1) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 2751 Heather ANDERSEN, et al., Respondents, v. KING COUNTY, et al., Appellants, v. State of Washington, Appellant, Senator Val Stevens, et al., Appellants.,, 2004 WL 3312868, *3312868+ (Appellate Brief) (Wash. Feb 24, 2004) State of Washington's Reply to Amici Curiae Briefs (NO. 75934-1, 75956-1) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 2752 Julaine K. APPLING, Jo Egelhoff, Jaren E. Hiller, Richard Kessenich and Edmund L. Webster, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Petitioners, v. Scott WALKER, Kitty Rhoades and Oskar Anderson, Defendants-Respondents, FAIR WISCONSIN, INC., Glenn Carlson, Michael Childers, Crystal Hyslop, Janice Czyscon, Kathy Flores, Annkendzierski, David Kopitzke, Paul Klawiter, Chad Wege and Andrew Wege, Intervening Defendants-Respondents., 2013 WL 4552726, *1+ (Appellate Brief) (Wis. Aug 12, 2013) Petitioners' Brief (NO. 2011AP1572) HN: 41 (N.E.2d) 2753 William C. MCCONKEY, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Respondent, v. J.B. VAN HOLLEN, in his role as Attorney General of Wisconsin, DefendantRespondent-Cross-Appellant., 2009 WL 2761589, *2761589+ (Appellate Brief) (Wis. Aug 13, 2009) Combined Brief and Appendix of DefendantRespondent-Cross Appellant (NO. 2008AP1868) 2754 Jody HELGELAND, Jessie Tanner, Virginia Wolf, Carol Schumacher, Diane Schermann, Michelle Collins, Megan Sapnar, Ingrid Anderson, Eloise McPike, Janice Barnett, Jayne Dunnum and Robin Timm, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. WISCONSIN MUNICIPALITIES, Appellant-Petitioner, Wisconsin State Senate and Asssembly Co-Appellant, Department of Employee Trust Funds, Employee Trust Funds Board, Eric Stanchfield and Group Insurance Board, DefendantsRespondents., 2007 WL 7066499, *7066499+ (Appellate Brief) (Wis. Mar 14, 2007) Brief of Appellant-Petitioner (NO. 2005AP2540) 2755 Landy Lee FERTIG, Appellant, v. The State of Wyoming, Appellee., 2004 WL 5231964, *5231964+ (Appellate Brief) (Wyo. Sep 03, 2004) Brief of Appellant (NO. 04-56) " HN: 20 (N.E.2d) Joint Appendices 2756 Hollingsworth v. Perry, 2013 WL 1802128, *1+ (Joint Appendix) (U.S. Jan 22, 2013) JOINT APPENDIX, VOL. I (NO. 12-144) " HN: 34 (N.E.2d) Trial Court Documents (U.S.A.) Trial Pleadings 2757 Natasha N. JACKSON, Janin Kleid, and Gary Bradley, Plaintiffs, v. Neil S. ABERCROMBIE, Governor, State of Hawai'i, and Loretta J. Fuddy, Director, Department of Health, State of Hawai'i, Defendants., 2012 WL 8679503, *1+ (Trial Pleading) (D.Hawai'i Jan 27, 2012) First Amended Complaint; Certificate of Service (NO. CV11-00734 ACK KSC) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d)
2758 Jeffrey J. FORD, Plaintiff, v. Michael J. FLANNER, in his individual capacity; Joseph Wetchler, in his individual capacity; Lorna Hecker, in her individual capacity; and Terry S. Trepper, in his individual capacity, Defendants., 2008 WL 7257442, *7257442 (Trial Pleading) (N.D.Ind. Aug 19, 2008) First Amended Verified Complaint (NO. 207CV00267) 2759 Jeffrey J. FORD, Plaintiff, v. Michael J. FLANNERY, individually and in his official capacity as Department Head for the Department of Behavioral Sciences at Purdue University Calumet; Joseph Wetchler, individually and in his official capacity as Professor and Director of the Marriage and Family Therapy Program at Purdue University Calumet; Lorna Hecker, individually and in her official capacity as Professor in the Marriage and Family Therapy Program, 2007 WL 4428867, *4428867 (Trial Pleading) (N.D.Ind. Aug 17, 2007) Verified Complaint (NO. 207CV0267TS) 2760 Maj Shannon L.MCLAUGHLIN; Casey Mclaughlin; Ltc Victoria A. Hudson; Monika Poxon; Col Stewart Bornhoft (Ret); Stephen Mcnabb; Lt Gary C. Ross; Dan Swezy; Cpt Steve M. Hill; Joshua Snyder; A1c Daniel Henderson; Jerret Henderson; Cw2 Charlie Morgan; Karen Morgan; Capt Joan Darrah (Ret); Jacqueline Kennedy, Plaintiffs, v. Leon E. PANETTA, in his official capacity as Secretary of Defense; Eric H. Holder, Jr., in his official capacity as Attorney General; Eric K., 2011 WL 5121135, *1 (Trial Pleading) (D.Mass. Oct 27, 2011) Complaint (NO. 11CV11905) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2761 NANCY GILL & MARCELLE LETOURNEAU, Martin Koski & James Fitzgerald, Dean Hara, Mary Ritchie & Kathleen Bush, Melba Abreu & Beatrice Hernandez, Marlin Nabors & Jonathan Knight, Mary Bowe-Shulman & Dorene Bowe-Shulman, Jo Ann Whitehead & Bette Jo Green, Randell Lewis-Kendell, and Herbert Burtis, Plaintiffs, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, United States Postal Service, John E. Potter, in his official capacity as the Postmaster General of the United, 2010 WL 2826297, *2826297+ (Trial Pleading) (D.Mass. May 25, 2010) Second Amended and Supplemental Complaint for Declaratory, Injunctive, or Other Relief and for Review of Agency Action (NO. 109-CV-10309) 2762 Nancy GILL & Marcelle Letourneau, Martin Koski & James Fitzgerald, Dean Hara, Mary Ritchie & Kathleen Bush, Melba Abreu & Beatrice Hernandez, Marlin Nabors & Jonathan Knight, Mary Bowe-Shulman & Dorene BoweShulman, Jo Ann Whitehead & Bette Jo Green, Randell Lewis-Kendell, and Herbert Burtis, Plaintiffs, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, United States Postal Service, John E. Potter, in his official capacity as the Postmaster General of the United, 2009 WL 5803677, *5803677+ (Trial Pleading) (D.Mass. Jul 31, 2009) First Amended and Supplemental Complaint for Declaratory, Injunctive, or Other Relief and for Review of Agency Action (NO. 109CV10309) 2763 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; Kathleen Sebelius, in her official capacity as the Secretary of the United States Department of Health
and Human Services; United States Department Of Veterans Affairs; Eric K. Shinseki, in his official capacity as the Secretary of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs; and the United States of America, Defendants., 2009 WL 1995808, *1995808+ (Trial Pleading) (D.Mass. Jul 08, 2009) Complaint (NO. 09CV11156) " 2764 Stephen DUNNE, Plaintiff, v. THE MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS, an administrative agency of the State of Massachusetts, William F. Kennedy, Jr., Chairman of the Massachusetts Board of Bar Examiners, Anthony G. Massimiano, Chairman of the Massachusetts Board of Bar Examiners, Alice E. Richmond, Chairman of the Massachusetts Board of Bar Examiners, Geoffrey R. Bok, Chairman of the Massachusetts Board of Bar Examiners, Michael K. Callahan, Chairman of the, 2007 WL 2962718, *2962718+ (Trial Pleading) (D.Mass. Jun 25, 2007) Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages - Jury Trial Demanded (NO. 07CV11166) 2765 Robert P. LARGESS, Rep. Mark J. Carron, Rep. Emile J. Goguen, Rep. Robert S. Hargraves, Rep. Peter J. Larkin, Rep. James R. Miceli, Rep. Philip Travis, Sen. Steven C. Panagiotakos, Rep. Christopher P. Asselin, Rep. Edward G. Connolly, Rep. John A. Lepper, Rep. Elizabeth A. Poirier, Plaintiffs, v. SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT FOR THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS; Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, Justice Robert J. Cordy, Justice Judith A. Cowin, Justice John M. Greaney, Justice, 2004 WL 3092322, *1+ (Trial Pleading) (D.Mass. May 11, 2004) Amended Complaint for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief and Declaratory Relief (NO. 04-10921-JLT) " HN: 36,41,42 (N.E.2d) 2766 Robert P. LARGESS, Rep. Mark J. Carron, Rep. Emile J. Goguen, Rep. Robert S. Hargraves, Rep. Peter J. Larkin, Rep. James R. Miceli, Rep. Philip Travis, Sen. Steven C. Panagiotakos, Rep. Christopher P. Asselin, Rep. Edward G. Connolly, Rep. John A. Lepper, Rep. Elizabeth A. Poirier, Plaintiffs, v. SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT FOR THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS; Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, Justice Robert J. Cordy, Justice Judith A. Cowin, Justice John M. Greaney, Justice, 2004 WL 2194281, *2194281+ (Trial Pleading) (D.Mass. May 11, 2004) Amended Complaint for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief and Declaratory Relief (NO. 04-10921-JLT) " HN: 38,41,42 (N.E.2d) 2767 Robert P. LARGESS, Plaintiff, v. SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT FOR THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS; Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, Justice Robert J. Cordy, Justice Judith A. Cowin, Justice John M. Greaney, Justice Roderick L. Ireland, Justice Martha B. Sosman, Justice Francis X. Spina, in their official capacities as Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts; Massachusetts Department of Public Health; Christine C. Ferguson, in her official, 2004 WL 3092323, *1+ (Trial Pleading) (D.Mass. May 10, 2004) Complaint for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief, Declaratory Relief (NO. 04-10921JLT) " HN:
36,41,42 (N.E.2d) 2768 Robert P. LARGESS, Plaintiff, v. SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT FOR THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS; Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, Justice Robert J. Cordy, Justice Judith A. Cowin, Justice John M. Greaney, Justice Roderick L. Ireland, Justice Martha B. Sosman, Justice Francis X. Spina, in their official capacities as Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts; Massachusetts Department of Public Health; Christine C. Ferguson, in her official, 2004 WL 2194240, *2194240+ (Trial Pleading) (D.Mass. May 10, 2004) Complaint for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief, Declaratory Relief (NO. 04-10921JLT) " HN: 1,41,42 (N.E.2d) 2769 Derek KITCHEN, individually; Moudi Sbeity, individually; Karen Archer, individually; Kate Call, individually; Laurie Wood, individually; and Kody Partridge, individually, Plaintiffs, v. Gary R. HERBERT, in his official capacity as Governor of Utah; John Swallow, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Utah; and Sherrie Swensen, in her official capacity as Clerk of Salt Lake County, Defendants., 2013 WL 1287377, *1 (Trial Pleading) (D.Utah Mar 25, 2013) Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (NO. 2:13CV00217) HN: 2,34 (N.E.2d) 2770 Derek KITCHEN, individually; Moudi Sbeity, individually; Karen Archer, individually; Kate Call, individually; Laurie Wood, individually; and Kody Partridge, individually, Plaintiffs, v. Gary R. HERBERT, in his official capacity as Governor of Utah; John Swallow, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Utah; and Sherrie Swensen, in her official capacity as Clerk of Salt Lake County, Defendants., 2013 WL 4510001, *1 (Trial Pleading) (D.Utah Mar 25, 2013) Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (NO. 2:13-CV-00217-RJS) HN: 2,34 (N.E.2d) 2771 Sandra and Roberta COTE-WHITACRE, Amy Zimmerman and Tanya Wexler, Mark Pearsall and Paul Trubey, Katrina and Kristin Gossman, Wendy Becker and Mary Norton, Michael Thorne and James Theberge, and Edward Butler and Leslie Schoof, Plaintiffs, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, Christine C. Ferguson, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Department of Public Health, Registry of Vital Records and Statistics, and Stanley E. Nyberg, in his official capacity as, 2006 WL 4561172, *4561172+ (Trial Pleading) (Mass.Super. May 12, 2006) Second Amended Verified Complaint Seeking Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Mandamus (NO. 04-2656-G) HN: 17 (N.E.2d) 2772 In the Matter of Martin J. GOLDEN, Serphin R. Maltese, James N. Tedisco, Daniel J. Burling, Brian M. Kolb, Michael R. Long, Shaun Marie Levine, Duane Motley, Jason McGuire, Stephen P. Hayford, William C. Banuchi, Sr., Angel D. Rodriguez, Piyali Dutta, William Carlson, Nicole Carlson, and Frances VellaMarrone, Petitioners, v. David A. PATERSON, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of New York, Respondent., 2008 WL 2344747, *2344747 (Trial Pleading) (N.Y.Sup. Jun 03, 2008) Verified Article 78 Petition (NO. 260148-2008) "
2773 In the Matter of Elissa KANE, Lynne Lekakis, Robert Barnes and George Jurgsatis, Petitioners, v. John MARSOLAIS, Albany City Clerk, and the New York State Health Department, Respondents., 2004 WL 5393086, *5393086 (Trial Pleading) (N.Y.Sup. Jun 16, 2004) Verified Petition (NO. 2004-3473) " HN: 17 (N.E.2d) Trial Motions, Memoranda and Affidavits 2774 Arthur SMELT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants, Dennis Hollingsworth, et al., Defendant-Intervenors., 2009 WL 2251796, *2251796+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (C.D.Cal. Jul 27, 2009) Intervenors' Memorandum of Points And Authorities in Support of United States of America's Motion to Dismiss (NO. MLGX, SACV09-286DOC) HN: 41 (N.E.2d) 2775 Arthur SMELT and Christopher Hammer, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, State of California, and Does 1 through 1,000, Defendants., 2009 WL 1683906, *1683906 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (C.D.Cal. Jun 11, 2009) Defendant United States of America's Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof (NO. MLGX, SACV09-00286DOC) 2776 Karen GOLINSKI, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, et al., Defendants., 2011 WL 2284303, *1+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Cal. Jun 03, 2011) Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (NO. 3:10-CV-0257-JSW) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2777 Karen GOLINSKI, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT and John Berry, Defendants., 2010 WL 4806218, *4806218 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Cal. Nov 19, 2010) Defendants' Supplemental Brief in Response to Court's Order of October 15, 2010 (NO. C410-00257-JSW) HN: 31 (N.E.2d) 2778 Kristin M. PERRY, Sandra B. Stier, Paul T. Katami, and Jeffrey J. Zarrillo, Plaintiffs, City and County of San Fran-Cisco, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER, in his official capacity as Governor of California; Edmund G. Brown, Jr., in his official capacity as Attorney General of California; Mark B. Horton, in his official capacity as Director of the California Department of Public Health and State Registrar of Vital Statistics; Linette Scott, in her, 2010 WL 474974, *474974+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Cal. Feb 03, 2010) Amended Brief in Support of Plaintiffs By Amici Curiae Asian Law Caucus, Asian American Justice Center, Asian Pacific American Bar Association of Los Angeles County, Asian Pacific American Legal ... (NO. 09-CV-2292VRW) 2779 Kristin M. PERRY, Sandra B. Stier, Paul T. Katami, and Jeffrey J. Zarrillo, Plaintiffs, City and County of San Fran-Cisco, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. Arnold
SCHWARZENEGGER, in his official capacity as Governor of California; Edmund G. Brown, Jr., in his official capacity as Attorney General of California; Mark B. Horton, in his official capacity as Director of the California Department of Public Health and State Registrar of Vital Statistics; Linette Scott, in her, 2010 WL 474976, *474976+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Cal. Feb 03, 2010) Brief in Support of Plaintiffs By Amici Curiae Asian Law Caucus, Asian American Justice Center, Asian Pacific American Bar Association of Los Angeles County, Asian Pacific American Legal Center, ... (NO. 09-CV-2292VRW) 2780 Kristin M. PERRY, et al., Plaintiffs, City and County of San Francisco, PlaintiffIntervenor, v. Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., Defendants, Proposition 8 Official Proponents Dennis Hollingsworth, et al., Defendant-Intervenors., 2010 WL 474969, *474969+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Cal. Jan 29, 2010) Brief of Amici Curiae Bay Area La Wyers for Individual Freedom (""Balif'') et al. in Support of Plaintiffs (NO. 09-CV-2292VRW) " HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 2781 Kristin M. PERRY, et al., Plaintiffs, City and County of San Francisco, PlaintiffIntervenor, v. Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., Defendants, Proposition 8 Official Proponents Dennis Hollingsworth, et al., Defendant-Intervenors., 2010 WL 97697, *97697+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Cal. Jan 08, 2010) Brief Amicus Curiae of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty in Support of Defendant-Intervenors (NO. 09-CV-2292VRW) 2782 Kristin M. PERRY, Sandra B. Stier, Paul T. Katami, and Jeffrey J. Zarrillo, Plaintiffs, v. Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER, in his official Authorities capacity as Governor of California; Edmund G. Brown, Jr., in his official capacity as Attorney General of California; Mark B. Horton, in his official capacity as Director of the California Department of Public Health and State Registrar of Vital Statistics; Linette Scott, in her official capacity as Deputy, 2009 WL 1995823, *1995823+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Cal. Jul 08, 2009) Notice of Motion and Motion to Intervene as Party Plaintiffs; Memorandum of Points and Authorities (NO. 09-CV-2292VRW) HN: 17 (N.E.2d) 2783 Kristin M. PERRY, Sandra B. Stier, Paul T. Katami, and Jeffrey J. Zarrillo, Plaintiffs, v. Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER, in his official capacity as Governor of California; Edmund G. Brown, Jr., in his official capacity as Attorney General of California; Mark B. Horton, in his official capacity as Director of the California Department of Public Health and State Registrar of Vital Statistics; Linette Scott, in her official capacity as Deputy Director of Health, 2009 WL 1748381, *1748381+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Cal. Jun 11, 2009) Proposed Intervenors' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (NO. 09-CV-2292VRW) 2784 Tyler Chase HARPER, a minor, by and through his parents Ron and Cheryl Harper, Plaintiffs, v. POWAY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; Jeff Mangum, Linda Vanderveen, Penny Ranftle, Steve McMillan, and Andy Patapow, all
individually and in their official capacity as Members of the Board of the Poway Unified School District; Dr. Donald A. Phillips, individually, and in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Poway Unified School District; Scott Fisher,, 2004 WL 5496061, *5496061+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Cal. Aug 12, 2004) Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (NO. 04CV1103JAH, POR) 2785 Joanne PEDERSEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, et al., Defendants., 2011 WL 3627043, *1+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Conn. Aug 15, 2011) Memorandum of Law of Intervenor-Defendant the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives in Support of its Motion to Dismiss (NO. 3:10-CV-01750 (VLB)) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2786 Michela LEOCATA, through Matthew T. Gilbride, Esq., Conservator over her Estate and Next of Friend, Plaintiff, v. Patricia WILSON-COKER, Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Social Services;. Tommy G. THOMPSON, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Defendants., 2004 WL 5537574, *5537574 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Conn. Aug 06, 2004) Objection to State Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (NO. 302CV01066) 2787 Michela LEOCATA, through Matthew T. Gilbride, Conservator and Next Friend, Plaintiff, v. Patricia WILSON-COKER, Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Social Services, Tommy THOMPSON, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendants., 2004 WL 5537565, *5537565+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Conn. Apr 27, 2004) Memorandum of Law In Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Injunction (NO. 302CV01066) HN: 27 (N.E.2d) 2788 Rev. Nancy WILSON, et. al., Plaintiffs, v. Richard L. AKE, et. al., Defendants., 2005 WL 1173914, *1173914 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (M.D.Fla. Jan 20, 2005) Dispositive Motion for Summary Judgment by the Clerk (NO. 804-CV-1680-T-30TBM) 2789 Rev. Namcu WILSON, et. al., Plaintiffs, v. Richard L. AKE, et al., Defendants., 2004 WL 3334723, *3334723 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (M.D.Fla. Nov 16, 2004) Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the United States Attorney General's Motion to Dismiss (NO. 804-CV-1680-T-30TBM) 2790 Rev. Nancy WILSON, et. al., Plaintiffs, v. Richard L. AKE, et al., Defendants., 2004 WL 3334724, *3334724 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (M.D.Fla. Nov 16, 2004) Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the United States Attorney General's Motion to Dismiss (NO. CILVIL804-CV-1680-T-) 2791 PHyllis Elaine HUNT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Richard L. AKE, et al., Defendants., 2004 WL 3334728, *3334728 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (M.D.Fla. Nov 16, 2004) Plaintiffs' Memorandum pf Law in Opposition to the
United States Attorney General's Motion to Dismiss (NO. 804-CV-1852-T-30TBM) 2792 Phyllis Elaine HUNT and Vilia Corvison, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Richard L. AKE, in his official capacity as Clerk of the Circuit and County Courts, Hillsborough County, Florida, et al., Defendants., 2004 WL 3334727, *3334727 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (M.D.Fla. Nov 01, 2004) Memorandum in Support of Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (NO. 804-CV-1852-T-30TBM) 2793 Rev. Nancy WILSON and Dr. Paula Schoenwether, Plaintiffs, v. Richard L. AKE, in his official capacity as Clerk of the Circuit and County Courts, Hillsborough County, Florida, et al., Defendants., 2004 WL 3334722, *3334722 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (M.D.Fla. Sep 27, 2004) Memorandum in Support of Federal Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (NO. 804-CV-1680-T-30TBM) 2794 F.D.R. ""Fluffy"" SULLIVAN and Pedro ""Rock"" Barrios, et al., Plaintiffs, v. John Ellis BUSH, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Florida, et al., Defendants., 2004 WL 3342952, *3342952+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Fla. Dec 03, 2004) Reply Memorandum in Support of United States Attorney General's Second Motion to Dismiss (NO. 04-21118-CIV-GRAHAM/) 2795 F.D.R. ""FLUFFY"" SULLIVAN, et al. Plaintiffs, v. John Ellts BUSH, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Florida; et al. Defendants., 2004 WL 3342984, *3342984 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Fla. Nov 15, 2004) Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the United States Attorney General's Second Motion to Dismiss (NO. 04CV21118-CIV-GRAHAM) 2796 F.D.R. ""Fluffy"" SULLIVAN and Pedro ""Rock"" Barrios, et al., Plaintiffs, v. John Ellis BUSH, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Florida, et al., Defendants., 2004 WL 3342951, *3342951 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Fla. Oct 04, 2004) United States Attorney General's Second Motion to Dismiss (NO. 04-21118-CIV-GRAHAM/) 2797 F.D.R. ""Fluffy"" SULLIVAN and Pedro ""Rock"" Barrios, et al., Plaintiffs, v. John Ellis BUSH, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Florida, et al., Defendants., 2004 WL 3343027, *3343027 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Fla. Aug 27, 2004) Federal Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (NO. 04-21118-CIV-GRAHAM/) 2798 Natasha N. JACKSON, Janin Kleid, and Gary Bradley, Plaintiffs, v. Neil S. ABERCROMBIE, Governor, State of Hawai'i, and Loretta J. Fuddy, Director of Health, State of Hawai'i, Defendants, and HAWAII FAMILY FORUM, Defendant-Intervenor., 2012 WL 10096222, *1+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Hawai'i Jun 29, 2012) Defendant Loretta J. Fuddy, Director of Health, State of Hawai'i's Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment Re Count Two: Violation of Plaintiffs' Right
to Equal Protection (NO. 111CV00734ACKKSC) " 2799 Natasha N. JACKSON, Janin Jackson, and Gary Bradley, Plaintiffs, v. Neil S. ABERCROMBIE, Governor, State of Hawai'i, and Loretta J. Fuddy, Director, Department of Health, State of Hawai'i, Defendants, and HAWAII FAMILY FORUM, Defendant-Intervenor., 2012 WL 10096240, *1+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Hawai'i Jun 29, 2012) Plaintiffs' Opposition to the Motions for Summary Judgment of Defendant Director Fuddy and Defendant-Intervenor Hawaii Family Forum; Certificate of Compliance; Certificate of Service (NO. 111CV00734ACKKSC) " HN: 16,17 (N.E.2d) 2800 Natasha N. JACKSON, Janin Jackson, and Gary Bradley, Plaintiffs, v. Neil S. ABERCROMBIE, Governor, State of Hawai'i, and Loretta J. Fuddy, Director, Department of Health, State of Hawai'i, Defendants, and HAWAII FAMILY FORUM, Defendant-Intervenor., 2012 WL 10096225, *1+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Hawai'i Jun 15, 2012) Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment Re Count Two: Violation of Plaintiffs' Right to Equal Protection (NO. 111CV00734ACKKSC) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 2801 Natasha N. JACKSON, Janin Kleid, and Gary Bradley, Plaintiffs, v. Neil S. ABERCROMBIE, Governor, State of Hawai'i, and Loretta J. Fuddy, Director of Health, State of Hawai'i, Defendants, and HAWAII FAMILY FORUM, Defendant-Intervenor., 2012 WL 10096230, *1+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Hawai'i Jun 15, 2012) Memorandum in Support of Motion (NO. 111CV00734ACKKSC) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 2802 Vernita GRAY and Patricia Ewert, Plaintiffs, Lisa MADIGAN, Attorney General of the State of Illinois, Intervenor, v. David Orr, in his official capacity as Cook County Clerk, Defendant., 2013 WL 6585592, *1 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Ill. Nov 25, 2013) Illinois Attorney General's Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (NO. 13-CV-8449) " HN: 19 (N.E.2d) 2803 Vernita GRAY and Patricia Ewert, Plaintiffs, v. David ORR, in his official capacity as Cook County Clerk, Defendant., 2013 WL 6585593, *1+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Ill. Nov 22, 2013) Memorandum in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (NO. 113-CV-8449) " HN: 16,17 (N.E.2d) 2804 ZURICH CAPITAL MARKETS, INC., et. al., Plaintiffs, v. Michael COGLIANESE, et. al., Defendants; John Waldock, et. al., Plaintiffs, v. Michael Coglianese, et. al., Defendants., 2004 WL 2173911, *2173911 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Ill. May 18, 2004) Vorisek Defendants' Reply Memorandum in Support of Their Rule 12(B)(6) Motion to Dismiss the ZCM Investors' Amended Complaint (NO. 03C5293, 03C7960) 2805 John D. FISKE and Rosemarie Fiske, Plaintiffs, v. DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS as Trustee for the Rali 2006QS18 Trust, et al., Defendants., 2012 WL 8145845, *1+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit)
(D.Mass. Oct 10, 2012) Plaiantiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, with Memorandum of Reasons (NO. 1:12-CV-11543-GAO) 2806 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Dianne WILKERSON., 2010 WL 4739420, *4739420 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Mass. Nov 19, 2010) Defendant's Sentencing Memorandum (NO. 08-10345-DPW) 2807 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; Kathleen Sebelius, in her official capacity as the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services; United States Department of Veterans Affairs; Eric K. Shinseki, in his official capacity as the Secretary of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs; and the United States of America, Defendants., 2010 WL 1285463, *1285463+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Mass. Mar 25, 2010) Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Complaint and in Support of Commonwealth's Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 109-CV-11156-JLT) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 2808 NANCY GILL & MARCELLE LETOURNEAU, et al., Plaintiffs, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, et al., Defendants., 2010 WL 3863145, *3863145+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Mass. Mar 24, 2010) Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (Leave to File Granted on March 24, 2010) (NO. 109-CV-10309JLT) " HN: 17 (N.E.2d) 2809 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; Kathleen Sebelius, in her official capacity as the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services; United States Department of Veterans Affairs; Eric K. Shinseki, in his official capacity as the Secretary of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs; and the United States of America, Defendants., 2010 WL 581804, *581804+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Mass. Feb 18, 2010) Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Complaint and in Support of Commonwealth's Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 109-CV-11156-JLT) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 2810 Elaine JOYCE, Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF DENNIS, Dennis Pines Golf Course, Dennis Highlands, Robert Canevazzi, Michael Cummings, Dennis Penner, and Russell Champoux, Defendants., 2009 WL 4642534, *4642534 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Mass. Nov 18, 2009) Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 108CV10277) 2811 NANCY GILL & MARCELLE LETOURNEAU, et al., Plaintiffs, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, et al., Defendants., 2009 WL 5803679, *5803679+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Mass. Nov 17, 2009) Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 109CV10309) " HN: 17 (N.E.2d) 2812 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services; United States Department of Veterans Affairs; Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs; and the United States of America, Defendants., 2009 WL 3794375, *3794375+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Mass. Oct 30, 2009) Memorandum of Points and Authorities on Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (NO. 109-11156-JLT) 2813 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH and Human Services; Kathleen Sebelius, in her official capacity as the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services; United States Department of Veterans Affairs; Eric K. Shinseki, in his official capacity as the Secretary of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs; and the United States of America, Defendants., 2009 WL 3169897, *3169897+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Mass. Oct 01, 2009) Response of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to the Motion of Mark A. Thomas for Intervenor Status or to File an Amicus Curiae Brief (NO. 109-CV-11156-JLT) HN: 37 (N.E.2d) 2814 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services; United States Department of Veterans Affairs; Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs; and the United States of America, Defendants., 2009 WL 3169898, *3169898+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Mass. Oct 01, 2009) Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Motion for Permissive Intervention or, in the Alternative, for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief (NO. 109-11156-JLT) 2815 Nancy GILL & Marcelle Letourneau, et al., Plaintiffs, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, et al., Defendants., 2009 WL 5803678, *5803678 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Mass. Sep 18, 2009) Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (NO. 109CV10309) 2816 Elaine JOYCE, Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF DENNIS, Dennis Pines Golf Course, Dennis Highlands, Robert Canevazzi, Michael Cummings, Dennis Penner, and Russell Champoux, Defendants., 2009 WL 4642533, *4642533 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Mass. Aug 17, 2009) Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (NO. 108CV10277) 2817 Rosalie C. SARRO, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Linda A. Rivers, Plaintiff, v. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendant., 2008 WL 2178426, *2178426 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Mass. Mar 05, 2008) Plaintiff's Opposition to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (NO. 108CV10224) 2818 Stephen DUNNE, Plaintiff, v. THE MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS, et al., Defendants., 2007 WL 2962720, *2962720 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Mass. Jul 30, 2007) Memorandum in Support
of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (NO. 07-11166DPW) 2819 PARTNERS HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC., Plaintiff, v. Walter J. SULLIVAN, Dorca I. Gomez, and Martin S. Ebel, in their official capacities as Commissioners of the Massachusetts Comission Against Discrimination, Commonwealth of Massachusetts and Jason Webster, Defendants., 2007 WL 5187256, *5187256 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Mass. Jun 08, 2007) Brief of Amicus Curiae Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (NO. 06-11436-JLT) 2820 Valerie VERMETTE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Eli LILLY and Company, Defendant., 2007 WL 4605799, *4605799 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Mass. May 29, 2007) Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 06-CV-10586, NMG) 2821 Bernard A. LUCONTONI and Elizabeth Lucontoni, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED AIR LINES, INC., Defendant., 2006 WL 1353684, *1353684 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Mass. Apr 18, 2006) Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Reasons in Support of their Motion for Remand to State Court (NO. 06CA10570EFH) 2822 Patricia PEROTTI-CYRUS, Plaintiff, v. Robert JENSON, Chairman of The Board of Appeals For The Town of Sandwich, et al., Defendants., 2006 WL 1033394, *1033394 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Mass. Mar 01, 2006) Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 05-10116-DPW) 2823 Donald P. SPEAKMAN, Stephen H. Wedel, and Mark L. Robare, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. ALLMERICA FINANCIAL LIFE INS. &, ANNUITY CO., First Allmerica Financial Life Ins. Co., and Allmerica Financial Corp., Defendants., 2004 WL 2778430, *2778430+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Mass. Nov 01, 2004) Defendants' Reply Brief In Support of Their Motion to Dismiss (NO. 404-CV-40077-FDS) 2824 Robert P. LARGESS, Rep. Mark J. Carron, Rep. Emile J. Goguen, Rep. Robert S. Hargraves, Rep. Peter J. Larkin, Rep. James R. Miceli, Rep. Philip Travis, Sen. Steven C. Panagiotakos, Rep. Christopher P. Asselin, Rep. Edward G. Connolly, Rep. John A. Lepper, Rep. Elizabeth A. Poirier, Plaintiffs, v. SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT FOR THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS; Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, Justice Robert J. Cordy, Justice Judith A. Cowin, Justice John M. Greaney, Justice, 2004 WL 3093070, *1+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Mass. May 17, 2004) Plaintiffs' Memo of Law in Opposition to Defendant Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's Motion to Dismiss (NO. 04-10921-JLT) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 2825 Robert P. LARGESS, Plaintiff, v. SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT FOR THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS; Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, Justice Robert J. Cordy, Justice Judith A. Cowin, Justice John M. Greaney, Justice
Roderick L. Ireland, Justice Martha B. Sosman, Justice Francis X. Spina, in their official capacities as Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts; Massachusetts Department of Public Health; Christine C. Ferguson, in her official, 2004 WL 3093076, *1+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Mass. May 17, 2004) Opposition of Proposed Intervenors to Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (NO. 04CV10921) " HN: 17,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2826 Robert P. LARGESS, Rep. Mark J. Carron, Rep. Emile J. Goguen, Rep. Robert S. Hargraves, Rep. Peter J. Larkin, Rep. James R. Miceli, Rep. Philip Travis, Sen. Steven C. Panagiotakos, Rep. Christopher P. Asselin, Rep. Edward G. Connolly, Rep. John A. Lepper, Rep. Elizabeth A. Poirier, Plaintiffs, v. SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT FOR THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS; Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, Justice Robert J. Cordy, Justice Judith A. Cowin, Justice John M. Greaney, Justice, 2004 WL 2194308, *2194308+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Mass. May 12, 2004) Plaintiffs' Memo of Law in Opposition to Defendant Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's Motion to Dismiss (NO. 04-10921-JLT) 2827 Robert P. LARGESS, Plaintiff, v. SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT FOR THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS; Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, Justice Robert J. Cordy, Justice Judity A. Cowin, Justice John M. Greaney, Justice Roderick L. Ireland, Justice Martha B. Sosman, Justice Francis X. Spina, in their official capacities as Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts; Massachsuetts Department of Public Health; Christine C. Ferguson, in her official, 2004 WL 3093068, *1+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Mass. May 11, 2004) Memorandum of City of Boston and Judy A. McCarthy in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (NO. 04-10921-JLT) " HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 2828 Robert P. LARGESS, Plaintiff, v. SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT FOR THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS, et al., Defendants., 2004 WL 3093071, *1+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Mass. May 11, 2004) Supreme Judicial Court and Justices' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and in Support of Court and Justices' Motion to Dismiss (NO. 04-10921-JLT) HN: 37 (N.E.2d) 2829 Robert P. LARGESS, Plaintiff, v. SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT FOR THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS; Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, Justice Robert Cordy, Justice Judith A. Cowin, Justice John M. Greaney, Justice Roderick L. Ireland, Justice Martha B. Sosman, Justice Francis X. Spina, in their official capacities as Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts; Massachusetts Department of Public Health; Christine C. Ferguson, in her official, 2004 WL 3093075, *1+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Mass. May 11, 2004) Motion of Hillary Goodridge and Julie Goodridge, David Wilson and Robert Compton, Michael Horgan and Edward Balmelli, Maureen Brodoff and Ellen Wade, Gary Chalmers and Richard Linnell,
Heidi Norton ... (NO. 04CV10921) " HN: 31,36,42 (N.E.2d) 2830 Robert P. LARGESS, Rep. Mark J. Carron, Rep. Emile J. Goguen, Rep. Robert S. Hargraves, Rep. Peter J. Larkin, Rep. James R. Miceli, Rep. Philip Travis, Sen. Steven C. Panagiotakos, Rep. Christopher P. Asselin, Rep. Edward G. Connolly, Rep. John A. Lepper, Rep. Elizabeth A. Poirier, Plaintiffs, v. SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT FOR THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS; Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, Justice Robert J. Cordy, Justice Judith A. Cowin, Justice John M. Greaney, Justice, 2004 WL 2194295, *2194295+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Mass. May 11, 2004) Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Declaratory Relief, Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief. (NO. 04-10921-JLT) " HN: 31,37,41 (N.E.2d) 2831 Robert P. LARGESS, Plaintiff, v. SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT FOR THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS, et al., Defendants., 2004 WL 2194302, *2194302+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Mass. May 11, 2004) Supreme Judicial Court and Justices' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and in Support of Court and Justices' Motion to Dismiss (NO. 04-10921-JLT) 2832 Robert P. LARGESS, Plaintiff, v. SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT FOR THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS; Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, Justice Robert J. Cordy, Justice Judith A. Cowin, Justice John M. Greaney, Justice Roderick L. Ireland, Justice Martha B. Sosman, Justice Francis X. Spina, in their official capacities as Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts; Massachusetts Department of Public Health; Christine C. Ferguson, in her official, 2004 WL 3093069, *1+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Mass. May 10, 2004) Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (NO. 04-10921JLT) " HN: 2,37 (N.E.2d) 2833 Robert P. LARGESS, Plaintiff, v. SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT FOR THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS; Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, Justice Robert J. Cordy, Justice Judith A. Cowin, Justice John M. Greaney, Justice Roderick L. Ireland, Justice Martha B. Sosman, Justice Francis X. Spina, in their official capacities as Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts; Massachusetts Department of Public Health; Christine C. Ferguson, in her official, 2004 WL 3093073, *1+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Mass. May 10, 2004) Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (NO. 04-10921JLT) HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 2834 Robert P. LARGESS, Plaintiff, v. SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT FOR THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS; Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, Justice Robert J. Cordy, Justice Judith A. Cowin, Justice John M. Greaney, Justice Roderick L. Ireland, Justice Martha B. Sosman, Justice Francis X. Spina, in their official capacities as Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts; Massachusetts Department of Public Health; Christine C. Ferguson, in her official, 2004 WL 2194258, *2194258+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and
Affidavit) (D.Mass. 2004) Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (NO. 04-10921JLT) " HN: 37 (N.E.2d) 2835 Robert P. LARGESS, Plaintiff, v. SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT FOR THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS; Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, Justice Robert J. Cordy, Justice Judity A. Cowin, Justice John M. Greaney, Justice Roderick L. Ireland, Justice Martha B. Sosman, Justice Francis X. Spina, in their official Capacities as Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts; Massachsuetts Department of Public Health; Christine C. Ferguson, in her official, 2004 WL 2194274, *2194274+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Mass. 2004) Memorandum of City of Boston and Judy A. McCarthy in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (NO. 04-10921-JLT) 2836 Alisha PHILLIPS, Marshall Phillips, Plaintiffs, v. MESSERLI & KRAMER, P.A., Brian A. Chou, Christine Doe, Erin Doe, and Sarah Doe, Defendants., 2008 WL 8443270, *1 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Minn. Jul 30, 2008) Memorandum of Defendants Messerli & Kramer, P.A., and Brian A. Chou in Support of Their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint (NO. 08CV04419) " HN: 33 (N.E.2d) 2837 Beverly SEVCIK et al., Plaintiffs, v. Brian SANDOVAL, etc., et al., Defendants., 2012 WL 5870998, *1+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Nev. Sep 10, 2012) The Coalition's Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support (NO. 12CV00578) " HN: 7 (N.E.2d) 2838 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Andrew CATAPANO et. al, Defendant., 2008 WL 5719118, *5719118 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (E.D.N.Y. Dec 01, 2008) Supplemental Memorandum of Law in Support of Ms. Alpert's Motion to Motion to Quash the Subpoena for Her Testimony (NO. 05-CR-229FB) HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 2839 Edith Schlain WINDSOR, in her capacity as Executor of the estate of Thea Clara Spyer, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant., 2011 WL 3754422, *1+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.N.Y. Aug 19, 2011) Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to DefendantIntervenor's Motion to Dismiss (NO. 10 CIV. 8435 (BSJ) () 2840 Edith Schlain WINDSOR, in her capacity as executor of the estate of Thea Clara Spyer, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant., 2011 WL 3515738, *1+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.N.Y. Aug 01, 2011) Memorandum of Law of Intervenor-Defendant the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss (NO. 10-CV-8435 (BSJ)(JCF) HN: 2,6,34 (N.E.2d) 2841 Edith Schlain WINDSOR, in her capacity as Executor of the Estate of Thea Clara Spyer, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant., 2011 WL 3098311, *1+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.N.Y. Jul 26,
2011) Brief for the State of New York as Amicus Curiae in Support of the Plaintiff (NO. 1:10-CV-8435-BSJ-JCF) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 2842 Edith Schlain WINDSOR, in her capacity as Executor of the estate of Thea Clara Spyer, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant., 2011 WL 3165327, *1+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.N.Y. Jun 24, 2011) Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 10 CIV. 8435 (BSJ) () " HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 2843 Mary BISHOP and Sharon Baldwin, Individuals; Susan G. Barton and Gay E. Philltps, Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel. Drew Edmondson, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma, et al, Defendants., 2004 WL 3340696, *3340696+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Okla. Dec 15, 2004) Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support (NO. 04-CV848K(J)) " HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 2844 WHITEWOOD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CORBETT, et al., Defendants., 2013 WL 6046848, *1+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (M.D.Pa. Oct 21, 2013) Plaintiffs' Brief in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Donald Petrille, Jr. (NO. 13-1861-JEJ) " HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2845 Cleopatra De LEON, Nicole Dimetman Victor Holmes, and Mark Phariss, Plaintiffs, v. Rick PERRY, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Texas; Greg Abbott, in his official capacity as Texas Attorney General; Gerard Rickhoff, in his official capacity as Bexar County Clerk; and David Lakey, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Texas Department of State Health Services, Defendants., 2013 WL 6980908, *1+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (W.D.Tex. Dec 23, 2013) State Defendants' Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (NO. 5:13-CV-982-OLG) " HN: 2 (N.E.2d) 2846 Cleopatra De LEON, Nicole Dimetman, Victor Holmes, and Mark Phariss, Plaintiffs, v. Rick PERRY, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Texas, Greg Abbott, in his official capacity as Texas Attorney General, Gerard Rickhoff, in his official capacity as Bexar County Clerk, and David Lakey, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Texas Department of State Health Services, Defendants., 2013 WL 6980897, *1+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (W.D.Tex. Nov 27, 2013) Plaintiffs' Opposed Motion for Preliminary Injunction Enjoining Defendants from Enforcing Texas' SameSex Marriage Ban (NO. 5:13-CV-982-OLG) " HN: 32,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2847 Derek KITCHEN, individually; Moudi Sbeity, individually; Karen Archer, individually; Kate Call, individually; Laurie Wood, individually; and Kody Partridge, individually, Plaintiffs, v. Gary R. HERBERT, in his official capacity as Governor of Utah; John Swallow, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Utah; and Sherrie Swensen, in her official capacity as Clerk of Salt Lake County, Defendants., 2013 WL 6330847, *1+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Utah Nov 22, 2013) Response of the Governor and Attorney General in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 2:13-CV-00217-RJS) HN: 34 (N.E.2d)
2848 J. BRONSON, G. Lee Cook and D. Cook, Plaintiffs, v. Sherrie SWENSEN, Salt Lake County Clerk, Defendant., 2004 WL 3462304, *3462304+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Utah Jun 29, 2004) Reply & Response Memorandum Re: Motions for Summary Judgment (NO. 0204-CV-0021TS) 2849 Casie Jo MCGEE and Sarah Elizabeth Adkins; Justin Murdock and William Glavaris; and Nancy Elizabeth Michael and Jane Louise Fenton, individually and as next friends of A.S.M., a minor child;, Plaintiffs, v. Karen S. COLE, in her official capacity as Cabel County Clerk; and Vera J. McCormick, in her official capacity as Kanawha County Clerk;, Defendants, and State of West Virginia, ex rel. Patrick Morrissey, Attorney General, Intervenor., 2013 WL 6915859, *1+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.W.Va. Dec 30, 2013) Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 3:13-CV-24068) " HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2850 Casie Jo MCGEE and Sarah Elizabeth Adkins, et al, Plaintiffs, v. Karen S. COLE, et al., Defendants, and State of West Virginia, Defendant-Intervenor., 2013 WL 6915860, *1+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.W.Va. Dec 23, 2013) Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant Cole's Motion to Dismiss (NO. 3:13-CV-24068) " HN: 37 (N.E.2d) 2851 Barbara E. HENSON, Kaylynn M. Lagamma, Susan A. Osorio, and Connie L. Trujillo, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS, Colorado, Defendant., 2005 WL 6145029, *6145029+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Colo.Dist.Ct. Nov 09, 2005) Plaintiffs' Response to Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 05CV0416) HN: 31 (N.E.2d) 2852 Elizabeth KERRIGAN, et. al., v. State of Connecticut, et. al., 2005 WL 6225564, *1+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Conn.Super. Nov 23, 2005) Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendants State of Connecticut, Department of Public Health, and J. Robert Galvin and in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. CV04-4001813-S) " HN: 36 (N.E.2d) 2853 Elizabeth KERRIGAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. State of Connecticut, Department of Public Health, et al., Defendants., 2005 WL 6225563, *6225563+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Conn.Super. Nov 23, 2005) Brief of Amicus Curiae Family Research Council in Support of Defendants (NO. NNHCV-04-4001813-S) 2854 Elizabeth KERRIGAN & Joanne Mock, Janet Peck & Carol Conklin, Geraldine Artis & Suzanne Artis, Jeffrey Busch & Stephen Davis, J.E. Martin & Denise Howard, John Anderson & Garrett Stack, Barbara Levine-Ritterman & Robin Levine-Ritterman, Damaris Navarro & Gloria Searson, v. State of Connecticut, Department: of Public Health, J. Robert Galvin, in his/her official capacity as Commissioner of the Department Of Public Health, and Dorothy C. Bean, in, 2005 WL 6225562, *6225562+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Conn.Super. Jul 28, 2005) Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. NNH-CV04-4001813) " HN:
15,31,34 (N.E.2d) 2855 Elizabeth KERRIGAN, et al., v. State of Connecticut, Department of Public Health, et al., 2005 WL 6225561, *6225561+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Conn.Super. Jan 20, 2005) Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment%n1%n (NO. NNHCV04-4001813) " HN: 17 (N.E.2d) 2856 Harry R. JACKSON, Jr.; et al., Petitioners, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND ETHICS, Respondent, District of Columbia, Respondent-Intervenor., 2004 WL 5822564, *5822564 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.C.Super. Jan 10, 2004) Petitioners' Reply Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (NO. 2009CA008613B) 2857 James DARBY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. David ORR, in his official capacity as Cook County Clerk, Defendant, & Tanya Lazaro, et al, Plaintiffs, v. David Orr, in his official capacity as Cook County Clerk, Defendant., 2012 WL 3841698, *1+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ill.Cir.Ct. Jul 20, 2012) Proposed Intervenors' Memorandum In Support of Their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaints Under 735 ILCS 5/2-615(a) (NO. 12CH19718) " HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2858 Katherine VARNUM, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Timothy J. BRIEN, in his official capacities as the Polk County Recorder and Registrar, Defendant., 2007 WL 2809775, *2809775+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Iowa Dist. Jul 27, 2007) Brief of Amicus Curiae The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty in Support of Defendant (NO. CV5965) 2859 Katherine VARNUM, Patricia Hyde; Dawn Barbouroske, Jennifer Barbouroske; Jason Morgan, Charles Swaggerty; David Twombley, Lawrence Hoch; William M. Musser, Otter Dreaming; Ingrid Olson and Reva Evans, Plaintiffs, v. Timothy J. BRIEN, in his official capacities as the Polk County Recorder and Polk County Registrar, Defendant., 2007 WL 2809772, *2809772 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Iowa Dist. May 04, 2007) Supplement to Reply Brief in Support of motion for Summary Judgment and Defendant's Resistance to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. CV5965) 2860 Katherine VARNUM, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Timothy J. BRIEN, in his official capacities as the Polk County Recorder and Polk County Registrar, Defendant., 2007 WL 2809777, *2809777+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Iowa Dist. Apr 06, 2007) Iowa Legislators' Brief as Amici Curiae Supporting Defendant (NO. CV5965) " HN: 31,33,34 (N.E.2d) 2861 Katherine VARNUM, Patricia Hyde; Dawn Barbouroske, Jennifer Barbouroske; Jason Morgan, Charles Swaggerty; David Twombley, Lawrence Hoch; William M. Musser, Otter Dreaming; Ingrid Olson and Reva Evans, Plaintiffs, v. Timothy J. BRIEN, in his official capacities as the Polk County Recorder and Polk County Registrar, Defendant., 2007 WL 2809774, *2809774+ (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (Iowa Dist. Mar 30, 2007) Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendant's Resistance to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. CV5965) 2862 Katherine VARNUM, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Timothy J. BRIEN, in his official capacities as the Polk County Recorder and Polk County Registrar, Defendant., 2007 WL 2461128, *2461128+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Iowa Dist. Jan 30, 2007) Memorandum of Authorities in Support of All Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and in Support of All Plaintiffs' Resistance to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. CV5965) " HN: 32 (N.E.2d) 2863 Katherine VARNUM, Patricia Hyde; Dawn Barbouroske, Jennifer Barbouroske; Jason Morgan, Charles Swaggerty; David Twombley, Lawrence Hoch; William M. Musser, Otter Dreaming; Ingrid Olson and Reva Evans, Plaintiffs, v. Timothy J. BRIEN, in his official capacities as the Polk County Recorder and Polk County Registrar, Defendant., 2006 WL 4803839, *4803839+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Iowa Dist. Dec 01, 2006) Brief of Defendant Timothy J. Brien (NO. CV5965) 2864 Katherine VARNUM, Patricia Hyde; Dawn Barbouroske, Jennifer Barbouroske; Jason Morgan, Charles Swaggerty; David Twombley, Lawrence Hoch; William M. Musser, Otter Dreaming; Ingrid Olson and Reva Evans, Plaintiffs, v. Timothy J. BRIEN, in his official capacities as the Polk County Recorder and Polk County Registrar, Defendant., 2006 WL 4803847, *4803847 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Iowa Dist. Sep 12, 2006) Resistance of Defendant Timothy J. Brien to Plaintiff's Motion to Add New Parties (NO. CV5965) 2865 RYO CIGAR ASSOCIATION, INC. New Image Global, Inc., HBI International Corp., and Blunt Wrap USA, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. THE BOSTON PUBLIC HEALTH COMMISSION, Defendant., 2009 WL 4883654, *4883654+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Mass.Super. Jan 30, 2009) Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction (NO. 09-169) 2866 Sophie CURRIER, v. NATIONAL BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS., 2007 WL 7323496, *7323496 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Mass.Super. Sep 05, 2007) Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (NO. CV2007-01515) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 2867 Sara ROBERTSON, Plaintiff, v. Daniel M. MORGAN, Barrett Morgan, Philip R. Morgan & A. Mitra Morgan, as they are Trustees of the Morgan Construction Company Voting Trust Agreement, and Morgan Construction Company, Defendants., 2007 WL 4969739, *4969739+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Mass.Super. Feb 13, 2007) Plaintiff's Statement of Reasons in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and in Support of Summary Judgment Being Granted to Plaintiff (NO. 03-1890A) 2868 Michelle D. CHARRON, Cynthia, J. Kalish, and Hannah E. Kalish, PPA Cynthia J. Kalish, Plaintiffs, v. Edward L. AMARAL, M.D., Laura J. Bessette, M.D., and
Fallon Clinic, Inc., Defendants., 2006 WL 6618967, *6618967+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Mass.Super. Mar 13, 2006) Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to Loss of Consortium Claims Asserted by Plaintiff, Cynthia J. Kalish, Pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 56(b) (NO. WOCV2004-00985C) HN: 38 (N.E.2d) 2869 Michelle D. CHARRON, Cynthia J. Kalish, and Hannah E. Kalish, PPA Cynthia J. Kalish, Plaintiffs, v. Edward L. AMARAL, M.D., Laura J. Bessette, M.D., and Fallon Clinic, Inc., Defendants., 2006 WL 4388862, *4388862+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Mass.Super. Mar 02, 2006) Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of Their Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 04-0985-C) 2870 Lourdes MORALES, Plaintiff, v. CONTRIBUTORY RETIREMENT APPEAL BOARD and State Board of Retirement, Defendants., 2006 WL 6554690, *6554690 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Mass.Super. 2006) Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and in the Alternative for Judgment on the Pleadings (NO. 06073) 2871 Wen Ji XIANG and Ge Wang, Plaintiffs, v. Katie BLANCHARD, Julie Douglass, and Jeremy Douglass, Defendants., 2005 WL 6340866, *6340866+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Mass.Super. Aug 24, 2005) Defendants, Katie Blanchard, Julie Douglass and Jeremy Douglass' Concise Statement of Facts and Applicable Law in Acordance with Superior Court Rule 9A(b)(5) (NO. 04-3543F) 2872 Wen Ji XIANG and Ge Wang, Plaintiffs, v. Katie BLANCHARD, Julie Douglass, and Jeremy Douglass, Defendants., 2005 WL 6340867, *6340867+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Mass.Super. Aug 21, 2005) Defendants, Katie Blanchard, Julie Douglass and Jeremy Douglass' Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Rule 56 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff, Ge Wang's, Loss of Consortium Claim (NO. 04-3543F) 2873 Sara ROBERTSON, Plaintiff, v. Daniel M. MORGAN, Barrett Morgan, Philip R. Morgan & A. Mitra Morgan, as they are Trustees of the Morgan Construction Company Voting Trust Agreement and Morgan Construction Company, Defendants., 2004 WL 5542365, *5542365 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Mass.Super. Sep 08, 2004) Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.p. Rule 12(b)(6) (NO. 03-1890A) 2874 Douglas JOHNSTONE, Clerk of the Town of Provincetown, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Thomas REILLY, Attorney General, et al., Defendants; Sandra and Roberta Cote-Whitacre, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Department of Public Health, et al., Defendants., 2004 WL 5324745, *5324745+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Mass.Super. Jul 12, 2004) Defendants' Opposition to Clerks' and Couple's Motions for Preliminary Injunctions (NO. 04-2655-G04-2656-H)
2875 Sandra and Roberta COTE-WHITACRE, Amy Zimmerman and Tanya Wexler, Mark Pearsall and Paul Trubey, Katrina and Kristin Gossman, Judith and Lee McNeil-Beckwith, Wendy Becker and Mary Norton, Michael Thorne and James Theberge, and Edward Butler and Leslie Schoof, Plaintiffs, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, Christine C. Ferguson, in her capacity as Commissioner of the Department of Public Health; Registry of Vital Records and Statistics, and Stanley E. Nyberg, in his capacity, 2004 WL 5324744, *5324744+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Mass.Super. Jun 23, 2004) Motion for Preliminary Injunction (NO. 04-2656-G) " HN: 17,31,36 (N.E.2d) 2876 Hillary GOODRIDGE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, et al., Defendants., 2004 WL 5042720, *5042720 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Mass.Super. May 04, 2004) Motion to Intervene of Ambassador Ray Flynn and Thomas A. Shields (NO. 01-1647-A) 2877 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, v. Karl CLEMMEY; Commonwealth of Massachusetts, v. Quirk Trust LLC., 2004 WL 5802223, *5802223+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Mass.Super. May 03, 2004) Defendants Karl Clemmey and Quirk Trust LLC's Reply Memorandum (NO. BRCR2003-1327, BRCR2003-1328) 2878 Richard S. SOUZA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Sheriff Thomas M. HODGSON, Defendant., 2004 WL 5662409, *5662409+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Mass.Super. Mar 04, 2004) Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 2002-00870) 2879 Michelle D. CHARRON, Cynthia, J. Kalish, and Hannah E. Kalish, PPA Cynthia J. Kalish, Plaintiffs, v. Edward L. AMARAL, M.D., Laura J. Bessette, M.D., and Fallon Clinic, Inc., Defendants., 2004 WL 5258479, *5258479+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Mass.Super. 2004) Defendants' Statement of Legal Elements Pursuant to Superior Court Rule 9A(B)(5) in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. WOCV2004-00985) 2880 Michelle D. CHARRON, Cynthia, J. Kalish, and Hannah E. Kalish, PPA Cynthia J. Kalish, Plaintiffs, v. Edward L. AMARAL, M.D., Laura J. Bessette, M.D., and Fallon Clinic, Inc., Defendants., 2004 WL 5258480, *5258480+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Mass.Super. 2004) Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to Loss of Consortium Claims Asserted by Plaintiff, Cynthia J. Kalish, Pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 56(b) (NO. WOCV2004-00985) 2881 Gitanjali DEANE and Lisa Polyak, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Frank CONAWAY, et al., Defendants., 2004 WL 5623268, *5623268+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Md.Cir.Ct. 2004) Memorandum In Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 24-C-04-005390) 2882 GITANJALI DEANE & LISA POLYAK; Alvin Williams & Nigel Simon; Takia Foskey & Joanne Rabb; Jodi Kelber-kaye & Stacey Kargman-kaye; Donna Myers & Maria Barquero; John Lestitian; Charles Blackburn & Glen Dehn; Steven Palmer & Ryan Killough; Patrick Wojahn & David Kolesar; and Mikkole
Mozelle & Phelicia Kebreau, Plaintiffs, v. Frank CONAWAY, in his official capacity as Baltimore City Circuit Court Clerk; Osalyn Pugh, in her official capacity as Prince George's County, 2004 WL 5623269, *5623269 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Md.Cir.Ct. 2004) Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 24-C-04-005390) 2883 Vickie POPANZ and Cynthia Tack, Plaintiffs, v. Richard GENDRON and Rachel M. Gendron, Defendants., 2007 WL 4874714, *4874714 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Me.Super. Feb 21, 2007) Reply to Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Count II (NO. CV-06-688) 2884 NATIONAL PRIDE AT WORK, INC., et al., v. Jennifer GRANHOLM., 2005 WL 6221128, *6221128 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Mich.Cir.Ct. Aug 01, 2005) Jennifer M. Granholm's Brief in Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Disposition (NO. 05368CZ) " HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 2885 NATIONAL PRIDE AT WORK, INC. et al., Plaintiffs, v. Jennifer GRANHOLM, in her official capacity as Governor of the State of Michigan, Defendant., 2005 WL 6221770, *6221770+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Mich.Cir.Ct. Jun 29, 2005) The Michigan Conference of the American Association of University Professors' Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Disposition (NO. 05-368CZ) HN: 42 (N.E.2d) 2886 NATIONAL PRIDE AT WORK, INC., a non-profit organization on behalf of its Michigan Members; Becky Allen; Dorothea Agnostopoulos; Adnan Ayoub; Meghan Bellanger; Judith Block; Mary M. Brisbois; Wade Carlson; Courtney D. Chapin; Michael Chapman; Michelle Corwin; Lori Curry; Joseph Darby; Scott Dennis; Jim Etzkorn; Jill Fuller; Susan Halsey-Ceragh; Peter Hammer; Debra Harrah; Ty Hiither; Jolinda Jach; Terry Korreck; Craig Kukuk; Gary Lindsay; Kevin McMann; A., 2005 WL 6221781, *6221781+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Mich.Cir.Ct. Jun 09, 2005) Brief of Plaintiffs in Support of Motion for Summary Disposition (NO. 05368-CZ) " 2887 NATIONAL PRIDE AT WORK, INC., a non-profit organization on behalf of its Michigan Members; Becky Allen; Dorothea Agnostopoulos; Adnan Ayoub; Meghan Bellanger; Judith Block; Mary M. Brisbois; Wade Carlson; Courtney D. Chapin; Michael Chapman; Michelle Corwin; Lori Curry; Joseph Darby; Scott Dennis; Jim Etzkorn; Jill Fuller; Susan Halsey-Ceragh; Peter Hammer; Debra Harrah; Ty Hiither; Jolinda Jach; Terry Korreck; Craig Kukuk; Gary Lindsay; Kevin McMann; A., 2005 WL 6221782, *6221782+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Mich.Cir.Ct. Apr 28, 2005) Brief of Plaintiffs in Support of Motion for Summary Disposition (NO. 05368-CZ) " 2888 NORTH AMERICAN PROPERTIES, a Partnership composed of Timothy S. Heers, Gary R. Heers, Cheryl D. Nolte, Terrie D. Heers and Cathleen J. Heers, Plaintiffs, v. MCCARRAN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT and Clark County, a Political subdivision of the State of Nevada, Defendants., 2012 WL 6206342, *1 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Nev.Dist.Ct. Jun 27, 2012)
Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment and Countermotion for Summary Judgment (NO. 09A594649) 2889 State of New Hampshire, v. Michael ADDISON., 2008 WL 2703961, *2703961 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.H.Super. Jan 04, 2008) Motion to Bar the Death Penalty No. 16: The Death Penalty Statute Violates the New Hampshire Constitution Because it Compels a Trial Before a Jury that is Not As Impartial As The Lot of Humanity Will ... (NO. 07-S-0254) " HN: 21 (N.E.2d) 2890 Karen CAGGIANO, Plaintiff, v. Armando B. FONTOURA, Essex County Sheriff, individually and in his official capacity, The State of New Jersey, the County of Essex, Office of the Sheriff of Essex County a/k/a Essex County Sheriff's Office, Robert LeFrancis, individually and in his official capacity, Ron Tutela, individually and in his official capacity, Defendants., 2004 WL 3686319, *3686319+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.J.Super.L. Jan 20, 2004) Plaintiff's Reply Brief in Further Support of Motion for Protective Order Pursuant to R. 4:10-3 (NO. UNN-L-001608-00) 2891 Karen CAGGIANO, Plaintiff, v. Armando B. FONTOURA, Essex County Sheriff, individually and in his official capacity, the State of New Jersey, the County of Essex, Office of the Sheriff of Essex County a/k/a Essex County Sheriff's Office, Robert Le Francis, individually and in his official capacity, and Ron Tutella, individually and in his official capacity, Defendants., 2004 WL 3686317, *3686317+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.J.Super.L. Jan 07, 2004) Plaintiff's Brief in Support of Motion for Protective Order Pursuant to R. 4:10-3 (NO. UNN-L-1608-00) HN: 15 (N.E.2d) 2892 Karen CAGGIANO, Plaintiff, v. Armando B. FONTOURA, Essex County Sheriff, individually and in his official capacity, the State of New Jersey, the County of Essex, Office of the Sheriff of Essex County a/k/a Essex County Sheriff's Office, Robert Le Francis, individually and in his official capacity, and Ron Tutella, individually and in his official capacity, Defendants., 2004 WL 3686322, *3686322+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.J.Super.L. Jan 07, 2004) Plaintiff's Brief in Support of Motion for Protective Order Pursuant to R. 4:10-3 (NO. UNN-L-1608-00) HN: 15 (N.E.2d) 2893 Rose GRIEGO and Kimberly Kiel; Miriam Rand and Ona Lara Porter; A.D. Joplin and Greg Gomez; Therese Councilor and Tanya Struble; Monica Leaming and Cecilia Taulbee; and Jen Roper and Angelique Neuman, Plaintiffs, v. Maggie Toulouse OLIVER, in her official capacity as Clerk of Bernalillo County; Geraldine Salazar, in her official capacity as Clerk of Santa Fe County; and the State of New Mexico, Defendants., 2013 WL 4879250, *1 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.M. Dist. Aug 21, 2013) Plaintiffs Roper and Neuman's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order or, in the Alternative, An Expedited Hearing for Preliminary Injunction (NO. D202-CV-2013-02757) 2894 Martin J. GOLDEN, Serphin R. Maltese, James N. Tedisco, Daniel J. Burling, Brian M. Kolb, Michael R. Long, Shaun Marie Levine, Duane Motley, Jason
McGuire, Stephen P. Hayford, William C. Banuchi, Sr., Angel D. Rodriguez, Piyati Dutta, William Carlson, Nicole Carlson, Frances Vella-Marrone, Michael J. Fitzpatrick, and Michael W. Cole, Petitioners, v. David A. PATERSON, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of New York, Respondent, Peri, 2008 WL 8455139, *1 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.Y.Sup. Sep 02, 2008) Affirmation of Susan L. Sommer in Support of RespondentIntervenors' Cross-Motion to Dismiss (NO. 260148/08) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2895 Margaret GODFREY, Rosemarie Jarosz, and Joseph Rossini, Plaintiffs, v. Andrew J. SPANO, in his official capacity as the Westchester County Executive, Defendant, Michael Sabatino and Robert Voorheis, Defendants-Intervenors., 2007 WL 7293294, *7293294 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.Y.Sup. Jan 26, 2007) Affirmation of Susan L. Sommer in Support of Defendants-Intervenors' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Verified Complaint and in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for A Preliminary Injunction (NO. 16894/06) 2896 Margaret GODFREY, Rosemarie Jarosz, George V. Imburgia and Joseph Rossini, Plaintiffs, v. Andrew J. SPANO, in his official capacity as the Westchester County Executive, Defendant, Michael Sabatino and Robert Voorheis, Defendants-Intervenors., 2006 WL 6201541, *1 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.Y.Sup. Dec 15, 2006) Affirmation of Alphonso B. David in Support of Defendants-Intervenors' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Verified Complaint and in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (NO. 16894/06) HN: 2,34,36 (N.E.2d) 2897 Margaret GODFREY, Rosemarie Jarosz, George V. Imburgia and Joseph Rossini, Plaintiffs, v. Andrew J. SPANO, in his official capacity as the Westchester County Executive, Defendant, Michael Sabatino and Robert Voorheis, Defendants-Intervenors., 2006 WL 6644966, *6644966 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.Y.Sup. Dec 15, 2006) Affirmation of Alphonso B. David in Support of Defendants-Intervenors' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Verified Complaint and in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for A Preliminary Injunction (NO. 16894/06) 2898 Daniel HERNANDEZ and Nevin Cohen, Lauren Abrams and Donna FreemanTweed, Michael Elsasser and Douglas Robinson, Mary Jo Kennedy and Jo-Ann Shain, and Daniel Reyes and Curtis Woolbright, Plaintiffs, v. Victor ROBLES, in his official capacity as City Clerk of the City of New York, Defendant., 2005 WL 6221893, *6221893+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.Y.Sup. Feb 07, 2005) Amended Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 103434/04) 2899 Daniel HERNANDEZ and Nevin Cohen, Lauren Abrams and Donna FreemanTweed, Michael Elsasser and Douglas Robinson, Mary Jo Kennedy and Jo-Ann Shain, and Daniel Reyes and Curtis Woolbright, Plaintiffs, v. Victor ROBLES, in his official capacity as City Clerk of the City of New York, Defendant., 2005 WL
6428626, *6428626+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.Y.Sup. Feb 07, 2005) Amended Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 103434/04) 2900 Daniel HERNANDEZ and Nevin Cohen, Lauren Abrams and Donna FreemanTweed, Michael Elsasser and Douglas Ronbinson, Mary Jo Kennedy and Jo-Ann Shain, and Daniel Reyes and Curtis Woolbright, Plaintiffs, v. Victor L. ROBLES, in his official capacity as City Clerk, Defendant., 2005 WL 6428627, *6428627+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.Y.Sup. Feb 07, 2005) Memorandum of Law on Behalf of Amici in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and in Support of Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 103434/04) 2901 Daniel HERNANDEZ and Nevin Cohen, Lauren Abrams and Donna FreemanTweed, Michael Elsasser and Douglas Robinson, Mary Jo Kennedy and Jo-Ann Shain, and Daniel Reyes and Curtis Woolbright, Plaintiffs, v. Victor L. ROBLES, in his official capacity as City Clerk of the City of New York, Defendant., 2005 WL 6428628, *6428628+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.Y.Sup. Feb 07, 2005) Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Response to Memorandum of Law on Behalf of Amici (NO. 103434/2004) 2902 In the Matter of the Application of Elissa KANE, Lynne Lekakis, Robert Barnes, and George Jurgsatis, Petitioners, v. John MARSOLAIS, Albany City Clerk, and the New York State Health Department, Respondents., 2004 WL 5393088, *5393088+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.Y.Sup. Aug 27, 2004) Memorandum of Law in Support of the Answer and Motion to Dismiss of the New York State Department of Health (NO. 3473-04) 2903 Daniel HERNANDEZ and Nevin Cohen, Lauren Abrams and Donna FreemanTweed, Michael Elsasser and Douglas Ronbinson, Mary Jo Kennedy and Jo-Ann Shain, and Daniel Reyes and Curtis Woolbright, Plaintiffs, v. Victor L. ROBLES, in his official capacity as City Clerk, Defendant., 2004 WL 6075100, *1+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.Y.Sup. Aug 24, 2004) Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Motion to Intervene as Party Defendants (NO. 1034342004) HN: 2,36 (N.E.2d) 2904 In the Matter of Elissa KANE, Lynne Lekakis, Robert Barnes and George Jurgsatis, Petitioners, v. John MARSOLAIS, Albany City Clerk, and the New York State Health Department, Respondent., 2004 WL 5393090, *5393090+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.Y.Sup. Jun 16, 2004) Memorandum of Law (NO. 2004-3473) 2905 Mary LI and Rebecca Kennedy; Stephen Knox, M.D., and Eric Warshaw, M.D.; Kelly Burke and Dolores Doyle; Donna Potter and Pamela Moen; Dominick Vetri and Douglas Dewitt; Sally Sheklow and Enid Lefton; Irene Farrera and Nina Korican; Walter Frankel and Curtis Kiefer; Julie Williams and Coleen Belisle; Basic Rights Oregon; and American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, Plaintiffs, Multnomah County, Intervenor-Plaintiff, v. STATE OF OREGON; Theodore, 2004 WL 3764121, *3764121+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit)
(Or.Cir. Apr 14, 2004) Plaintiffs' Combined Reply in Support of Their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (NO. 0403-03057) 2906 Mary LI and Rebecca Kennedy; Stephen Knox, M.D., and Eric Warshaw, M.D.; Kelly Burke and Dolores Doyle; Donna Potter and Pamela Moen; Dominick Vetri and Douglas Dewitt; Sally Sheklow and Enid Lefton; Irene Farrera and Nina Korican; Walter Frankel and Curtis Kiefer; Julie Williams and Coleen Belisle; Basic Rights Oregon; and American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, Plaintiffs, Multnomah County, Intervenor-Plaintiff, v. STATE OF OREGON; Theodore, 2004 WL 3764123, *3764123 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Or.Cir. Apr 14, 2004) Defendants' Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 0403-03057) 2907 Mary LI and Rebecca Kennedy; Stephen Knox, M.D., and Eric Warshaw, M.D.; Kelly Burke and Dolores Doyle; Donna Potter and Pamela Moen; Dominick Vetri and Douglas Dewitt; Sally Sheklow and Enid Lefton; Irene Farrera and Nina Korican; Walter Frankel and Curtis Kiefer; Julie Williams and Coleen Belisle; Basic Rights Oregon; and American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, Plaintiffs, Multnomah County, Intervenor-Plaintiff, v. STATE OF OREGON; Theodore, 2004 WL 3764113, *3764113+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Or.Cir. Apr 12, 2004) Brief of Amici Curiae the Juvenile Rights Project, Inc.; The National Association of Social Workers; the Oregon Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers; Open Adoption & Family Services, ... (NO. 0403-03057) " HN: 32,34 (N.E.2d) 2908 Mary LI and Rebecca Kennedy; Stephen Knox, M.D., and Eric Warshaw, M.D.; Kelly Burke and Dolores Doyle; Donna Potter and Pamela Moen; Dominick Vetri and Douglas Dewitt; Sally Sheklow and Enid Lefton; Irene Farrera and Nina Korican; Walter Frankel and Curtis Kiefer; Julie Williams and Coleen Belisle; Basic Rights Oregon; and American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, Plaintiffs, Multnomah County, Intervenor-Plaintiff, v. STATE OF OREGON; Theodore, 2004 WL 3764114, *3764114+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Or.Cir. Apr 12, 2004) Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 0403-03057) " HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 2909 Mary LI and Rebecca Kennedy; Stephen Knox, M.D., and Eric Warshaw, M.D.; Kelly Burke and Dolores Doyle; Donna Potter and Pamela Moen; Dominick Vetri and Douglas Dewitt; Sally Sheklow and Enid Lefton; Irene Farrera and Nina Korican; Walter Frankel and Curtis Kiefer; Julie Williams and Coleen Belisle; Basic Rights Oregon; and American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, Plaintiffs, Multnomah County, Intervenor-Plaintiff, v. STATE OF OREGON; Theodore, 2004 WL 3764115, *3764115 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Or.Cir. Apr 12, 2004) Defendants' Response to Cross-Motions for Partial Summary Judgment (NO. 0403-03057) 2910 Mary LI and Rebecca Kennedy; Stephen Knox, M.D., and Eric Warshaw, M.D.; Kelly Burke and Dolores Doyle; Donna Potter and Pamela Moen; Dominick Vetri and Douglas Dewitt; Sally Sheklow and Enid Lefton; Irene Farrera and Nina Korican; Walter Frankel and Curtis Kiefer; Julie Williams and Coleen Belisle;
Basic Rights Oregon; and American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, Plaintiffs, Multnomah County, Intervenor-Plaintiff, v. STATE OF OREGON; Theodore, 2004 WL 3764116, *3764116+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Or.Cir. Apr 12, 2004) Plaintiffs' Opposition to Intervenors-Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (NO. 0403-03057) " 2911 Mary LI and Rebecca Kennedy; Stephen Knox, M.D. and Eric Warshaw, M.D.; Kelly Burke and Dolores Doyle; Donna Potter and Pamela Moen; Dominick Vetri and Douglas Dewitt; Sally Sheklow and Enid Lefton; Irene Farrera and Nina Korican; Walter Frankel and Curtis Kiefer; Julie Williams and Coleen Belisle; Basic Rights of Oregon; and American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, Plaintiffs, Multnomah County, Intervenor-Plaintiff, v. STATE OF OREGON; Theordore, 2004 WL 3764119, *3764119+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Or.Cir. Apr 12, 2004) Intervenor-Plaintiff Multnomah County's Response to State Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 0403-03057) 2912 Heather ANDERSEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KING COUNTY, et al., Defendants., 2004 WL 5577854, *5577854 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Wash.Super. Jul 20, 2004) State of Washington's Response to Briefs of Amici Curiae (NO. 04-2-04964-4SEA) 2913 Heather ANDERSEN and Leslie Christian; et al., Plaintiffs, v. KING COUNTY; et al., Defendants and third-Party plaintiffs, v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, Third party defendant, Senator Val STEVENS, et al., Intervenor defendants., 2004 WL 5577858, *5577858+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Wash.Super. Jul 12, 2004) Plaintiffs' Reply On Their Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 04-2-04964-4SEA) " HN: 32,34 (N.E.2d) 2914 Heather ANDERSEN And Leslie Christian; Peter Ilgenfritz and David Shull; Johanna Bender and Sherri Kokx; Janet Helson and Betty Lundquist; David Serkin-Poole and Michael Serkin-poole; Vegavahini Subramaniam and Vaijayanthimala Nagarajan, Plaintiffs, v. King COUNTY; Ron Sims, King County Executive; and Dean Logan, King County Director of Records, Elections, and Licensing Services Division;, Defendants., v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, Third party, 2004 WL 5577862, *1+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Wash.Super. Jun 24, 2004) Intervenors' Response to Plaintiffs' Summary Judgment Motion and Cross-motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 04-2-04964-4 SEA) 2915 Heather ANDERSEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KING COUNTY, et al., Defendants., 2004 WL 5577863, *5577863+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Wash.Super. Jun 18, 2004) State of Washington's Answer to Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 04-2-04964-4SEA) " HN: 34 (N.E.2d) 2916 Heather ANDERSEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. King COUNTY et al., Defendants., 2004 WL 5577864, *5577864 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Wash.Super. Jun 17, 2004) King County's Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment Cross-motion for (NO. 04-2-04964-4SEA)
2917 Heather ANDERSEN and Leslie Christian; Peter Ilgenfritz and David Shull; Johanna Bender and Sherri Kokx; Janet Helson and Betty Lundquist; David Serkin-poole and Michael Serkin-poole; Vegavahini Subramaniam and Vaijayanthimala Nagarajan, Plaintiffs, v. Ron SIMS, King County Executive; Dean Logan, King County Director of Records, Elections, and Licensing Services Division; and Cheryle a. Broom, King County Auditor, Defendans/Third Party Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF, 2004 WL 5577865, *5577865 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Wash.Super. May 14, 2004) Reply in Support of Motion to Intervene (NO. 04-2-04964-4SEA) 2918 Heather ANDERSEN et al., Plaintiffs, v. Ron SIMS, et al., Defendants, Ron SIMS, et al., Third-Party plaintiffs, v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, Third party defendant., 2004 WL 5577866, *5577866+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Wash.Super. May 07, 2004) Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 04-2-04964-4SEA) " HN: 17,22 (N.E.2d) Trial Filings 2919 Michelle D. CHARRON, Cynthia J. Kalish, and Hannah E. Kalish, PPA Cynthia J. Kalish, Plaintiffs, v. Edward L. AMARAL, M.D., Laura J. Bessette, M.D., and Fallon Clinic, Inc., Defendants., 2006 WL 5971916, *5971916+ (Trial Filing) (Mass.Super. Jun 30, 2006) Report of Case Pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 64(a) (NO. 04-0985-C) HN: 17 (N.E.2d) 2920 Patricia MARTINEZ, v. MONROE COMMUNITY COLLEGE and Sherry Ralston., 2004 WL 5651609, *5651609+ (Trial Filing) (N.Y.Sup. Mar 03, 2004) (NO. 433-2005) " HN: 31,36,42 (N.E.2d) 2921 MASSACHUSETTS NURSES ASSOCIATION, v. ESSENT HEALTHCARE OF MASSACHUSETTS, INC., 2007 WL 7281585, *7281585+ (Arbitration Award) (D.Mass. Feb 28, 2007) Arbitration Decision (NO. 06CV11238, 113000263505) Secondary Sources (Australia) 2922 Open Chambers: High Court Associates and Supreme Court Clerks Compared, 31 Melbourne University Law Review 646 (2007) 2923 The Legal Regulation of Marriage - Update, 29 Melbourne University Law Review 569+ (2005) Secondary Sources (Canada) 2924 Franchir Les Limites de la Salle de Classe : Une Exprience de Droit Compar en Droit de la Famille, 24 Canadian Journal of Family Law 65+ (2008) 2925 Judicial Redefinition of Marriage, 21 Canadian Journal of Family Law 11 (2004) 2926 Unsettling Sexual Citizenship Brenda Cossman, Sexual Citizens: The Legal and Cultural Regulation of Sex and Belonging. Stanford, Cal.: Stanford University
Press, 2007. Pp. 244 (Cloth $55 (U.S.), 53 McGill L.J. 535, 571 (2008) 2927 Same-Sex Relationships Across Borders, 49 McGill L.J. 1005, 1033 (2004) 2928 Sexual Orientation and the Charter: The Achievement of Formal Legal Equality (1985-2005) and Its Limits, 49 McGill L.J. 1143, 1180+ (2004) 2929 Marriage (P)reference - Equality, Dignity and Individual Voices, 17 National Journal of Constitutional Law 213+ (2005) 2930 The Dialogic Saga of Same-Sex Marriage: EGALE, Halpern, and the Relationship Between Suspended Declarations and Productive Political Discourse About Rights, 62 U. Toronto Fac. L. Rev. 149, 152+ (2004) 2931 Dignity, Liberty, Equality: A Fundamental Rights Triangle of Constitutionalism, 59 U. Toronto L.J. 417, 468+ (2009) HN: 21 (N.E.2d) Secondary Sources (Hong Kong) 2932 W v Registrar of Marriages: From Transsexual Marriage to Same-sex Marriage?, 40 Hong Kong Law Journal 549 (2010) 2933 To Be or Not To Be: Recognition of Same-sex Partnerships in Hong Kong, 34 Hong Kong Law Journal 557 (2004) Secondary Sources (International) 2934 Hope, Fear and Loathing, and the Post-Sebelius Disequilibrium: Assessing the Relationship between Parties, Congress, and Courts in Tea Party America, 2 Brit. J. Am. Legal Stud. 27, 58+ (2013) 2935 Why Liberal Neutrality Prohibits Same-Sex Marriage: Rawls, Political Liberalism, and the Family, 1 Brit. J. Am. Legal Stud. 411, 454+ (2012) HN: 32,34 (N.E.2d) Secondary Sources (New Zealand) 2936 Essay: Family Law and Civil Union Partnerships - Status, Contract and Access to Symbols, 37 Vict. U. Wellington L. Rev. 183, 198 (2006) Secondary Sources (Singapore) 2937 The Next Fifty Years of the Women's Charter-Ripples of Change, 2011 Singapore Journal of Legal Studies 152 (2011) HN: 34,36 (N.E.2d) 2938 "Don't Ever Take a Fence Down until You Know the Reason It Was Put up" Singapore Communitarianism and the Case for Conserving 377A, 2008 Singapore Journal of Legal Studies 347 (2008)

Goodridge v. Department of Public Health

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Goodridge v. Department of Public Health

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

798 N.E.2d 941 440 Mass. 309, 798 N.E.2d 941 (Cite as: 440 Mass.

309, 798 N.E.2d 941)

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

253 Marriage 253k1 k. Nature of the obligation. Most

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

[18] Marriage 253

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

92 Constitutional Law 92XXVI Equal Protection 92XXVI(B) Particular Classes

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

[39] Statutes 361

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.