A news story would have to be pretty special to bring together the royal family and gay liberation, so well done to the Very Rev Kelvin Holdsworth, who took a hearty stab at marrying the two last week. Having two men or two women take the lead roles at Westminster Abbey would simply make these anachronistic displays of pomp and circumstance feel a bit more normal. The only real benefactor of that would be the royal family itself, which — despite being the least progressive aspect of British society — would get to align its brand with progressive values. Social attitudes and legislative equality have shifted further than the royal family could take them. They are the flag-bearer of conservative family values, but the traditional rights of family life have been won largely without their help.
Amici, as historians, do not propose to offer the Court legal doctrine to justify a holding that the Texas Homosexual Conduct Law violates the U. The Texas law at issue is an example of such irrational discrimination. Colonial sexual regulation included such non-procreative acts as masturbation, and sodomy laws applied equally to male-male, male-female, and human-animal sexual activity. The Court in Bowers v. Hardwick misapprehended this history. Proscriptive laws designed to suppress all forms of nonprocreative and non-marital sexual conduct existed through much of the last millennium. Widespread discrimination against a class of people on the basis of their homosexual status developed only in the twentieth century, however, and peaked from the s to the s.
Perhaps no issue is more nerve-wracking today than same-sex marriage. But beneath all the fiery passion and rhetoric, there are real arguments to evaluate. First, this article concerns civil marriage — marriage as defined and promoted by the state. Second, the responses to the arguments are emphatically nonreligious.
Defending President Clinton's new "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy, Gorelick was asked to explain how someone alleged to be homosexual could establish that she was not, in fact, homosexual. Gorelick answered with an example: "In one instance a woman was alleged to have said that she was a lesbian. She came in and said essentially that the statement had been misunderstood.