Bibliographic record
Abstract
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. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".