Search

Offers a look at the role of the United States judicial system in changing U.S. culture. Statement that the Supreme Court has upheld affirmative action, stopped efforts to end abortion rights, upheld the right to trial by jury, and protected free speech, among other actions; Ability of progressives to work with and apart from the courts on issues such as racial justice and women's rights; Opinion that progressives have lost the habit of following up judicial verdicts with grassroots movements; Failure of progressives to explain to the public why abortion is fundamentally fair; Failure of the gay rights movement to follow up a Supreme Court decision that invalidated criminal sodomy laws.

The article comments on the decisions issued by the U.S. Supreme Court on various cases concerning individual rights and equality as of July 2003. According to the author, in a single week, the Court upheld affirmative action, issued a trailblazing gay rights decision, reversed a death sentence for ineffective assistance of counsel and threw out a sex offense conviction for violating the Constitution's ex post facto clause.

The article highlights the decision issued by the U.S. Supreme Court on the gay rights case, Lawrence v. Texas, as it corrected the wrong committed by the Court in the Bowers v. Hardwick case in 1986. The Court issued an affirmation of the citizenship of gay people, a confirmation of privacy rights as enumerated by reproductive rights law and, more importantly, an elaboration of sexual rights under the U.S. Constitution that could protect sexual dissidents of all stripes. According to Paula Ettelbrick of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, the decision of U.S. Justice Anthony Kennedy rejected morality as a basis for state regulation of sexuality.

Focuses on the gay rent-control regulations in the U.S. Discussion of a case in which a New York court ruled that a gay lover had the right to stay in his deceased partner's rent-control apartment because the lover qualified as a member of the family of the deceased; Observation that several cities have domestic partnership laws which allow relationships that do not fit into the category of heterosexual marriage to be registered with the city.

Comments on legal arguments behind the case of Goodridge, et al. v. Department of Public Health, in which the Massachusetts Supreme Court found that denying gay citizens the right to marry was a violation of the state's constitution. Argument that homosexuals are not merely heterosexuals in disguise, and that sexual orientation is hardwired; Argument that inability to procreate is no basis for denying a couple the right to marry; Acknowledgement that the freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness, and the refusal of it is a denial of a basic human right; Claim that there will be no negative social effects caused by gay marriage.

The article reports on the New Jersey Supreme Court's ruling on October 25, 2006 that same-sex couples are entitled to legal recognition and to the same benefits that heterosexual couples acquire through marriage. The court has given lawmakers to 180 days to rewrite the laws to give equal benefits to same-sex couples.

This article focuses on the legalization of same-sex marriages in Massachusetts and the impending battle between gay activists and social conservatives. Seldom in recent times has a clerical act inspired so much jubilation. One second past midnight on May 17th, gay marriage became legal in Massachusetts, and same-sex couples began to fill out marriage licence applications in Cambridge City Hall, specially opened for the occasion. War is an appropriate metaphor. Supporters, pointing out that May 17th was the 50th anniversary of Brown v Board of Education, claim the ceremonies in Massachusetts mark the biggest advance in civil rights since racial segregation was abolished. Conservatives, who see "the end of western civilisation" in the marriages, look back to 1973 and another Supreme Court ruling: Roe v Wade, which legalised abortion and started a culture war that has lasted for 30 years. Certainly, the full legalisation of gay marriage in Massachusetts took many liberal activists by surprise. Many assumed Vermont's civil unions (non-marriages with most of the legal advantages) would be the best they could get. The right's reaction was less militant than might have been expected. Yet the counterattack is only just around the corner and may precipitate years of conflict. Only a handful of liberal states, including Connecticut, Rhode Island and New York, have suggested they might honour same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts.

The article reports on the decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeals regarding the right to women-only policy. The British Columbia Court of Appeals had ruled out that the Vancouver Rape Relief and Women's Shelter (VRR) has the right to accept only women to volunteer to counsel women. The ruling overturned a previous judgment by the Human Rights Tribunal that VRR could not discriminate Kimberly Nixon as a volunteer. Nixon is the transsexual-complainant in a case against VRR.

Comments on Hugh Owens' religious beliefs and Christianity, and the decision of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench to uphold a fine levied against Owens by a human rights tribunal. Perception that if Owens refuses to pay the fine, he will go to jail; Description of the crime of Owens, which was to submit an advertisement to a newspaper depicting anti-gay views; Way that Owens cited Bible passages to support his anti-gay beliefs.

This section presents selected lower court rulings in the U.S. that evidence an impact on human and civil rights issues. In the case Chicoine v. Chicoine, the South Dakota Supreme Court, citing a mother's open lesbian behavior, remanded a trial court's order allowing the woman restricted visits with her two children. The justices cited several decisions from other states that hold a parent's sexual behavior does have relevance in deciding the scope and nature of visitation rights. In the case U.S. v. Minsky, a federal appeals court in Cincinnati, Ohio, ruled that a talk between a prosecutor and a judge violated the constitutional rights of a defendant whose attorney was not present. The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit directly affects the state of Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan and Tennessee and is likely to be closely scrutinized by other circuits. In the case, Jane Doe v. George D. Small, a Chicago, Illinois, federal appeals court reversed a trial judge's order banning a Christian display from a public park in Ottawa, Illinois. The Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the ban on the display was too severe and unduly penalized the Jaycees, who sponsored the annual display.