El matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo en los Estados Unidos de América

  1. Karin Castro Cruzatt
Journal:
Revista general de derecho constitucional

ISSN: 1886-6212

Year of publication: 2016

Issue: 22

Type: Article

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR

More publications in: Revista general de derecho constitucional

Abstract

The purpose of this essay is to analyze the same-sex marriage debate in the United States of America from a constitutional approach. To this end, I will discuss the key arguments in the academic and judicial debate, namely, sexual orientation discrimination and the right to marry. Later, I will analyze from a critical point of view the three decisions that the United States Supreme Court has issued around this matter: Windsor v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 2693-95 (2013), Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652 (2013), and Obergefell et al. v. Hodges, 576 U.S. (2015). As we will see, although equality arguments have never played a crucial role in the Court’s argumentation, in Obergefell et al. v. Hodges, the United States Supreme Court has embraced an inclusive interpretation of the right to marry of the Due Process Clause, as one reaching heterosexual and homosexual persons, supporting its interpretation in the Equal Protection Clause.

Bibliographic References

  • BAIRD, K. M., “‘Immutability’ and Stigma: Towards a More Progressive Equal Protection Rights Discourse”, en Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law, núm. 18, 2010, pp. 439-453.
  • BALL, M. S., “Judicial Protection of Powerless Minorities”, en Iowa Law Review, núm. 59, 1970, pp. 1059-1096.
  • BROOKS, R. L. y WIDNER, K. “In defense of the Black/White Binary: Reclaiming a Tradition of Civil Rights Scholarship”, en Berkeley Journal of African-American Law & Policy, núm. 12(1), 2010, pp. 107-148.
  • CASTRO, K., “La determinación de los grupos protegidos por la Equal Protection Clause”, en: López C. Víctor y Santana V. Dulce María (Dir.), Estado de Derecho y discriminación por razón de género, orientación e identidad sexual, Madrid, Thomson Reuters Aranzadi, 2014, pp. 67-86.
  • CONKLE, D.O., “Evolving Values, Animus, and Same-Sex Marriage”, en Indiana Law Journal, núm. 89, 2014, pp. 27-42.
  • CROYLE, J., “Perry v. Schwarzenegger, Proposition 8, and the Fight for Same-Sex Marriage”, en Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law, núm. 19(1), 2012, pp. 425-435.
  • ELY, J.H. Democracia y Desconfianza. Una teoría del control constitucional. Santafé de Bogotá, Siglo del Hombre, 1997.
  • EYER, K. R., “Marriage This Term: On Liberty and the ‘New Equal Protection’”, en UCLA Law Review Discourse, núm. 60, 2012, pp. 2-14.
  • GOLDBERG, S., “Equality without Tiers”, en Southern California Law Review, núm. 77, 2004, pp. 481-583.
  • GRAHAM, T. C., “The shifting doctrinal face of immutability”, en Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law, núm. 19, 2012, pp. 169-204.
  • HALLEY, J. E., “Sexual Orientation and the Politics of Biology: A Critique of the Argument from Immutability”, en Stanford Law Review, núm. 43, 1994, pp. 503-568.
  • HUTCHINSON, D. L., “‘Not without political power’: Gays and lesbians, Equal Protection and the suspect class doctrine”, en Alabama Law Review, núm. 65(4), 2014, pp. 975-1034.
  • MAYERI, S., “A Common Fate of Discrimination: Race-gender Analogies in Legal and Historical Perspective”, en Yale Law Journal, núm. 110, 2001, pp. 1045-1087.
  • NEJAIME, D., “Windsor`s Right to Marry”, en Yale Law Journal, núm. 123, 2013, pp. 219-249.
  • NUSSBAUM, M. C. From disgust to humanity, Sexual Orientation and Constitutional Law, Oxford, Nueva York, Oxford University Press, 2010.
  • SCHACTER, J. S., “The Gay Civil Rights Debate in the States: Decoding the Discourse of Equivalents”, en Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, núm. 29, 1994, pp. 283-317.
  • SALAZAR, Octavio, “Derecho al Matrimonio y Diversidad Familiar”, en Revista de Derecho Político, núm. 86, 2013, pp. 195-226.
  • SIEGEL, R., “The Supreme Court 2012 Term. Foreword: Equality Divided”, en Harvard Law Review, núm. 127(1), 2013, pp. 1-94.
  • STRASSER, M., “Equal protection, Same-Sex Marriage, and Classifying on the Basis of Sex”, en Pepperdine Law Review, núm. 38, 2011, pp. 1021-1052.
  • SUNSTEIN, C. R., “The Anticaste Principle”, en Michigan Law Review, núm. 92(8), 1994, pp. 2410-2455.
  • SUNSTEIN, C. R., “Sexual Orientation and the Constitution: A Note on the Relationship Between Due Process and Equal Protection”, en University of Chicago Law Review, núm. 55, 1988, pp. 1161-1179.
  • WARDLE, L. D. y LINCOLN, O. C., “In Praise of Loving: Reflections on the ‘Loving Analogy’ for Same-Sex Marriage”, en Howard Law Journal, núm. 51, 2007, pp. 117- 186.
  • YOSHINO, K. Speak Now. Marriage equality on trial. The story of Hollingsworth v. Perry, Nueva York, Brown Publishers, 2015.
  • YOSHINO, K., “The paradox of political power: same-sex marriage and the Supreme Court”, en Utah Law Review, núm. 2, 2012, pp. 527-543.
  • YOSHINO, K., “Assimilationist Bias in Equal Protection: The Visibility Presumption and the Case of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, en Yale Law Journal, núm. 108, 1988, pp. 485-571.
Data source: Dialnet