Notice bibliographique
Résumé
I. INTRODUCTION II. THE EVOLUTION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN LAW A. The Decades-Long Effort to Strike Down Traditional Marriage Laws Has Been a Consistently Losing One, Until Recently B. By Firmly Establishing Same-Sex Marriage in Law, the Goodridge Decision Opened the Floodgates of Gay Marriage Litigation Across the Country C. The Federal Defense of Marriage Act, Coupled With a Popular Backlash, Has Slowed the Spread of Same-Sex Marriage, For Now 1. DOMA Protects the Traditional Definition of Marriage in Federal Law and Guarantees that the Question of Marriage Is Left to Individual States 2. Lawrence v. Texas Calls the Constitutionality of Federal and State DOMAs into Question III. THE LEGALIZATION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IS GENERATING A MULTIPLICITY OF SERIOUS RISKS FOR RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS A. Religious Institutions that Refuse to Recognize Same-Sex Marriages Risk Civil Liability 1. Religious Institutions that Disapprove of Employees Entering into Same-Sex Marriages Risk Suits Under Employment Anti-discrimination Laws 2. Religious Institutions that Disapprove of Same-Sex Cohabitation Risk Suits Under Fair Housing Laws 3. Religious Institutions that Refuse to Extend Their Services or Facilities to Same-Sex Couples on the Same Terms as Married Men and Women Risk Suits Under Public Accommodation Laws 4. Religious Institutions that Express Their Religious Disapproval of Same-Sex Marriage Publicly Face Potential Hate Crimes or Hate Speech Liability B. Religious Institutions that Refuse to Treat Legally Married Same-Sex Couples as Identical to Traditionally Married Men and Women Risk Losing Equal Access to a Variety of Government Benefits and Privileges 1. Religious Institutions that Refuse to Recognize Same-Sex Marriages Risk Losing Their Traditional Tax-Exempt Status 2. Religious Institutions that Refuse to Recognize Same-Sex Marriages Risk Exclusion from Competition for Government-Funded Social Service Contracts 3. Religious Institutions that Refuse to Recognize Same-Sex Marriages Risk Exclusion from Government Facilities and Fora 4. Religious Institutions that Refuse to Recognize Same-Sex Marriages Risk Exclusion from the State Function of Licensing Marriages IV. CONCLUSION APPENDIX A: SELECT FAILED CHALLENGES TO TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE APPENDIX B: SELECT STATE RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS TO CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF DISCRIMINATION APPENDIX C: SELECT STATE ANTI-DISCRIMINATION STATUTES WITHOUT RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS [T]he right to same-sex marriage conferred by the proposed legislation may potentially conflict with the right to freedom of religion.... Supreme Court of Canada, December 9, 2004. (1) I. INTRODUCTION On May 17, 2004, same-sex marriage became a legal reality in America. One hundred and eighty days earlier, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court had mandated this result in the case of Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, (2) and in so doing, unleashed a nationwide wave of litigation and political controversy that has yet to subside. In Goodridge, the court decreed that the state's traditional definition of marriage, which consisted exclusively of one man and one woman, was irrational and discriminated against gays and lesbians so invidiously that it violated state equal protection guarantees. (3) Although the decision carried with it profound implications for religious liberty, (4) the Goodridge court dismissed any religious freedom concerns with the following conclusory footnote: 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. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,013 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,036 | 0,003 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».