Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,512
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − + + + − ==In the United States== − In [[Homosexuality and American Law]], treatment of homosexuals by the law has increasingly suggested that discrimination based on homosexuality employs a "[[suspect classification]]" subject to "[[strict scrutiny]]" under modern [[Fourteenth Amendment]] [[jurisprudence]], with judges and scholars employing language to equate discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation with already forbidden [[racial discrimination]] practices.<ref>Pamela S. Karlan, "Loving Lawrence," available online at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=512662</ref> Where federal law forbidding discrimination against homosexuals remains scant, the several states have more than taken up the burden, and many have made sexual-orientation based discrimination actionable at law and equity.<ref>See, e.g., N.Y.C. Admin. Code, s 8-107</ref> Perhaps this can be seen as an example of the robustness of the [[United States]]' [[federal system]], as the states are acting just as Justice [[Oliver Wendell Holmes]] and [[Justice Brandeis]] expressed hope that they would, as "laboratories" of experimentation on the border of developed federal law.<ref>Brest, Levinson, et al, "Processes in Constitutional Decisionmaking: Cases and Materials," Fifth Edition.</ref>+ − ==State Legislative Action in the United States Concerning Homosexuality== − − In 2008, conservative groups in the [[United States]] had a major victory. [[Proposition 8]] passed in [[California]]. Proposition 8 was a voter-approved state Constitutional amendment that stated “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”<ref>http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3558</ref> The Proposition 8 amendment passed with the support of over 7 million voters, which accounted for approximately 52% of the vote on November 4, 2008."<ref>http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3558</ref> − − The [[Traditional Values Coalition]] has stated the following regarding state legislative action in the United States concerning homosexuality: − {{cquote|Homosexual power extends into state legislatures as well. The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), a homosexual group based in Washington, DC, issued a 34-page summary of state legislative activities in June, 2003. − − Homosexual activists and their political allies have introduced 41 bills in 24 states that provide special legal protections for “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” (code for cross-dressers and transsexuals). A total of 146 pro-homosexual bills are under consideration in state legislatures in 2003. Only 31 pro-family bills have been offered in 2003 — and only two have passed. Homosexuals are clearly winning and pro-family forces are losing.<ref>http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/Homosexuality101.pdf</ref>}} − − ==In the European Union== − [[Image:European Union.jpg|right|thumbnail|175px|Laws in EU member states vary, but in general are less anti-gay than in most countries.]] − Laws protecting the rights of homosexuals in the [[European Union]] are more extensive than in the United States. All 27 member states have decriminalised homosexual acts, and have laws against anti-gay discrimination: seven ban some types of discrimination, four ban most types, and sixteen ban all discrimination based on sexuality. Twenty-four members (all except [[Cyprus]], [[Greece]] and [[Latvia]]) allow openly gay individuals to serve in the military. [[Belgium]], the [[Netherlands]] and [[Spain]] recognise [[same-sex marriage]] ([[Sweden]] will in 2009), ten recognise [[Civil union|same-sex unions]], and two recognise [[Domestic partnership|cohabitation]]. The issue is under consideration in [[Greece]], [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]], [[Italy]] and [[Romania]]; Cyprus does not recognise any form of union, and [[Latvia]], [[Lithuania]] and [[Poland]] have a constitutional ban. − − Same-sex couples can legally adopt any child in Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the [[United Kingdom]], and can adopt the children of one of the partners in [[Germany]] and [[Denmark]]. In Ireland, both partners can foster children, but only one can adopt, and in [[France]], a single homosexual person can adopt. The other eighteen member states do not allow same-sex couples to adopt any child. Forty-four percent of EU citizens agreed that same-sex marriages should be legal across the EU; more than half agreed in Belgium, the [[Czech Republic]], Denmark, Germany, [[Luxembourg]], the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden; and less than 15% agreed in [[Bulgaria]], Cyprus, Greece, Latvia and Romania.<ref>[http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/14203 Eight EU Countries Back Same-Sex Marriage]</ref> − − ==See Also== − *[[Homosexuality]] − {{homosexualityb}}
→Judgment of founders of America on homosexuality
The world's '''homosexuality laws''' are currently diverse. For example, while the [[Netherlands]] recognizes same-sex marriages, under [[Saudi Arabia]]n law a person might face the death penalty for homosexual acts, although other penalties may be used instead of the death penalty.<ref>[http://www.cultureandfamily.org/articledisplay.asp?id=156&department=CFI&categoryid=cfreport Media Cry ‘Marriage’ As Homosexual Couples Tie the Knot in Germany ]</ref><ref>[http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/islam.htm Homosexuality and Islam]</ref>
The world's '''homosexuality laws''' are currently diverse. For example, while [[Denmark]] law recognizes same-sex marriages, under [[Saudi Arabia]]n law a person might face the death penalty in regards to [[homosexuality]] although other penalties may be used in lieu of the death penalty.<ref>[http://www.cultureandfamily.org/articledisplay.asp?id=156&department=CFI&categoryid=cfreport Media Cry ‘Marriage’ As Homosexual Couples Tie the Knot in Germany ]</ref><ref>[http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/islam.htm Homosexuality and Islam]</ref>
== American Homosexuality Laws ==
''For more information please see'': [[America and homosexuality laws]]
[[Image:Antonin.jpg|right|thumbnail|175px|[[Antonin Scalia]]]]
[[Image:Antonin.jpg|right|thumbnail|175px|[[Antonin Scalia]]]]
Treatment of homosexuals by the law has increasingly suggested that discrimination based on homosexuality employs a "[[suspect classification]]" subject to "[[strict scrutiny]]" under modern [[Fourteenth Amendment]] [[jurisprudence]], with judges and scholars employing language to equate discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation with already forbidden [[racial discrimination]] practices.<ref>Pamela S. Karlan, "Loving Lawrence," available online at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=512662</ref> Where federal law forbidding discrimination against homosexuals remains scant, the several states have more than taken up the burden, and many have made sexual-orientation based discrimination actionable at law and equity.<ref>See, e.g., N.Y.C. Admin. Code, s 8-107</ref> Perhaps this can be seen as an example of the robustness of the [[United States]]' [[federal system]], as the states are acting just as Justice [[Oliver Wendell Holmes]] and [[Justice Brandeis]] expressed hope that they would, as "laboratories" of experimentation on the border of developed federal law.<ref>Brest, Levinson, et al, "Processes in Constitutional Decisionmaking: Cases and Materials," Fifth Edition.</ref>
The [[Supreme Court]] recently overturned a [[Texas]] law banning sodomy. The majority opinion, written by [[Justice Kennedy]], suggests that all forms of discrimination, including that based on sexual orientation, are now subject to [[rational basis review]], and will be frowned upon unless a legitimate state interest in the discrimination is expressed. Justice Kennedy also held that the need to legislate morals by the states' [[police power]] is no longer a legitimate state interest, absent specific physical harms being proven. Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] wrote a blistering dissent, characterizing the opinion as including phrases which will become the "dicta that ate the [[Rule of Law|rule of law]]."<ref>See Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558</ref>
The [[Supreme Court]] recently overturned a [[Texas]] law banning sodomy. The majority opinion, written by [[Justice Kennedy]], suggests that all forms of discrimination, including that based on sexual orientation, are now subject to [[rational basis review]], and will be frowned upon unless a legitimate state interest in the discrimination is expressed. Justice Kennedy also held that the need to legislate morals by the states' [[police power]] is no longer a legitimate state interest, absent specific physical harms being proven. Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] wrote a blistering dissent, characterizing the opinion as including phrases which will become the "dicta that ate the [[Rule of Law|rule of law]]."<ref>See Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558</ref>
==References==
==References==
{{reflist|2}}
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Law]]
[[Category:Law]]