Search

Families in the United States are rapidly changing, and the normative familial model of two married, monogamous, heterosexual parents with children no longer reflects the majority of U.S. families. Nonetheless, state incentive-based policies and discriminatory family laws continue to enforce heteronormative monogamy. Recent changes to the U.S. legal landscape have produced limited formal recognition and protections for same-sex couples and LGBTQ parents, and even these narrow rights are withheld from other diverse familial configurations including families with polyamorous parents. This article uses the concept of sexual citizenship to frame the analysis of U.S. family courts' normative construction of family, identifying striking parallels between family courts' historical and contemporary prejudicial treatment of LGBTQ parents and the institution's similar delegitimization and denigration of polyamorous parents today. This paper reviews polyamorous parents' efforts towards achieving legal and societal legitimatization, finding significant parallels with legal strategies LGBTQ parents utilized to seek legal recognition and protection prior to federal recognition of same-sex marriage. This paper highlights the inadequacies of such a formal sexual citizenship approach, finding that a limited strategy of accumulating specific sexual rights fails to address non-monogamy's more radical cultural presence as well as the (non-legal) informal aspects of belonging needed to improve the livability of polyamorous parents' and their children's lives. This paper concludes with recommendations for improving the treatment of non-traditional families including LGBTQ, polyamorous, and other blended families, both within and outside the legal institution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Environmental health remains a niche topic in bioethics, despite being a prominent social determinant of health. In this paper we argue that if bioethicists are to take the project of health justice as a serious one, then we have to address environmental injustices and the threats they pose to our bioethics principles, health equity, and clinical care. To do this, we lay out three arguments supporting prioritizing environmental health in bioethics based on bioethics principles including a commitment to vulnerable populations and justice. We also highlight and advocate for environmental law efforts that align with these priorities, focusing specifically on the need for a right to a healthy environment. Our intention is to draw attention to the legal and ethical concepts that underlie the importance of a healthy environment, and urge bioethicists to prioritize both legal and ethical advocacy against environmental injustices in their practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Abstract: "Kosher" is a word used to illustrate the food laws of Jewish people. It's a traditional Jewish law for food. For Jews, it's more than food consumption with safety. It's regarding religious beliefs and traditions. Jews follow proper guidelines of Kosher and give the compulsion to food to be reckoned Kosher. The English word "Kosher" is derived from the Hebrew root "Kasher", which means to be pure, proper, or suitable for consumption. Kashrut is a charter that renders the foundation for kosher dietetic rule and is established inside 'Torah' which is a Jewish sacred book. Kosher dietetic rules are including all and produce a strict structure of rules and regulations which gives a sketch of foods allowed or prohibited. It also determines how foods allowed should be made, refined, and fixed before eating. The paper illustrates kosher law and food among American-Jewish people and their determination towards their religious beliefs in American land, which is not their motherland, with analysis from Philip Roth's novel Indignation. This paper also ascertains Jewish culture into the outlook of American culture which ends with a cultural clash referring to historical consequences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Attitude towards watching videos on phones while driving predicts intention. • Perception about state law doesn't determine watching videos while driving. • State law on distracted driving doesn't determine watching videos while driving. • Drivers think entertainment is the biggest benefit of watching videos while driving. • Drivers should be required to pass a course on distracted driving. This is a two-part mixed methods study that investigated motivations for watching videos on mobile phones while driving. We make three theoretical contributions in this paper. First, we specifically examine watching videos on mobile phones while driving, whereas previous studies examine calling, texting, monitoring messages, and using apps. Second, we specifically focus on waiting at intersections and driving in parking lots; parking lots have not been studied in previous studies. Third, we incorporate perception about the law into the Theory of Planned Behavior model as a predictor of intention. The quantitative survey yielded responses measuring each variable in our extended Theory of Planned Behavior model. We found that although people don't watch videos on their phones while driving as much as they text or converse, the rates of watching are disturbingly high (41% watch at intersections). The intention to watch while driving is a significant predictor of behavior, and attitude is a significant predictor of intention in both scenarios. Moral norms are significant predictors of intention in the parking lot scenario. Nearly half (48%) of drivers don't know their state laws regarding mobile phone use while driving. Neither knowledge about state law with respect to watching videos on mobile phones while driving nor the actual state law about using handheld devices while driving is a significant predictor of the intention to watch videos while driving. The qualitative survey yielded open-ended responses on drivers' salient beliefs about watching videos on mobile phones while driving. We propose using a multitude of laws to reduce mobile phone use while driving, and requiring drivers to take a short course on distracted driving. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explicates T.J. Taylor's understanding of normativity and the constitutive power of lay metadiscourse and juxtaposes it to Harris's concept of supercategory. It looks at the alignment between these two approaches, as well as the tensions, explaining their place within integrational theory. It then focusses on law as a supercategory, surveying briefly what integrationists have said about legal interpretation. The focus in the discussion is on the role of ordinary language arguments. In illustration of how this category works, the judgment in ∖ United States v Bhagat Singh Thind (1923) is analyzed, noting how the judge elected to deploy the ordinary rather the specialist meaning of Caucasian in explicating the statutory term white person. It is argued that ordinary language is a legal fiction, and therefore that it makes no sense to debate how better to give it empirical content. Any new approach to ordinary language (such as the use of corpora) needs to be domesticated within the interpretative culture of law in order to be accepted by judges. Integrationism is not designed to tell people how to decide contentious linguistic and interpretative issues, though there is no barrier to its appropriation. In conclusion, the point is made that both Taylor's and Harris's perspectives offer valuable insight in relation to ordinary language in law. • Offers a contrastive analysis of approaches to normativity in the work of Roy Harris and Talbot Taylor. • Explicates the place of the supercategory law within integrationism. • Explains how integrationism offers insights into law's engagement with questions of meaning and interpretation. • Makes clear the limitations of academic theory in resolving contentious issues of meaning in the public sphere. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This literature review covers the research and practice related to the integration of land use planning and water management in the United States (U.S.). Research articles are the primary source of information for this review, but reports published by consultancies, public utilities, municipalities, and advisory groups are also included. This review presents strategies to better integrate the two professions. We describe each strategy and provide examples that have been published in the literature. Strategies are divided into legal strategies which would require either federal, state, or local governments to pass new legislation, and strategies that could be implemented in the absence of new laws. This review is intended to be a resource for researchers, students, and practitioners seeking to advance the quality and effectiveness of land use planning and water management in the U.S. Research Impact Statement: This paper presents a comprehensive review of the strategies to integrate land use planning and water management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]