NotesAQUESTFORFAIRANDBALANCED创新.PDFVIP

  Notes A QUEST FOR FAIR AND BALANCED: THE SUPREME COURT, STATE COURTS, AND THE FUTURE OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE REVIEW AFTER PERRY CHASE D. ANDERSON† Habit, rather than analysis, makes it seem acceptable and natural to distinguish between male and female, alien and citizen, legitimate and illegitimate[,] . . . black and white. But that sort of stereotyped reaction may have no rational relationship—other than pure prejudicial discrimination—to the stated purpose for which the classification is being made. 1 – Justice John Paul Stevens ABSTRACT Gay rights advocates and social conservatives alike have criticized the Supreme Court for its recent decisions concerning sexual orientation. An examination of those decisions reveals that, taken together, they represent a surprisingly careful balance. The result is a principle of neutrality in which the Court has effectively demanded that states refrain from taking either side in the culture war surrounding sexual orientation. The true test of that neutrality principle will arise when the Court considers the constitutionality of a same-sex marriage ban. Thus far, challenges have taken place in state   Copyright © 2011 by Chase D. Anderson. † Duke University School of Law, J.D. expected 2011; Trinity College, B.A. 2007. I am extremely grateful to Katharine Bartlett for her guidance on and commitment to this Note; to Adrienne Fulco for her mentorship; to Corinne Oshima, Karen Otto, Leslie Mahaff