Search

The article discusses on the dispute right of same sex marriage and domestic partnership. It provides information that California voters are trying to add a new section in the California Family Court, to define marriage only for opposite sex couples. It reveals that this action is totally against to civil rights to gay and lesbian couples and their families. It emphasizes on constitutional guarantees and the strength, benefits of domestic partnerships. It also discusses the court case Koebke v. Bernardo Heights Country Club prosecuted in the California Supreme Court in which Country Club get failed to extend the same rights and privileges to a same sex couple.

The theoretical and empirical debate over the ability of the U.S. Supreme Court to influence public opinion through its decisions is far from settled. Scholars have examined the question using a variety of theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence, but there is no theoretical consensus, nor are the empirical studies without methodological weaknesses. We enter this debate in an attempt to bring some clarity to the theoretical approaches, overcome some of the methodological shortcomings, and bring a yet unstudied issue area, Court decisions on gay civil rights, under scrutiny We argue that the ability of Court decisions to influence public opinion is a function of the salience of the issue, the political context, and case specific factors at the aggregate level. At the individual level these factors are also relevant, but citizen characteristics must also be taken into consideration. Our analysis of aggregate level and individual level opinion does indeed suggest that Court decisions can influence public opinion. However, the ability of Court decisions to influence public opinion is conditional. Our findings lend support to the legitimation hypothesis and the structural effects model. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of our findings and suggestions for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents information on the case Dale v. Boy Scouts of America in reference to a private university's first amendment right to pursue diversity. Perhaps the reasoning in the case amounts to an ad hoc justification allowing the Boy Scouts to discriminate against gays. In fact, taking the defendant at face value may jeopardize a host of civil rights legislation, legislation that the U.S. depends upon and now takes as established. The implications of the broad First Amendment rights granted in the defendant make such questions reasonable and important. This comment explores just one question: whether the defendant can be extended to private universities arguably employing discriminatory practices in pursuit of diversity. It concludes that a fair reading of the majority position in the defendant suggests that private universities should be afforded this protection.