The constitutional right to (keep your) same-sex marriage

Michigan Law Review

Volumn 110, Issue 8, 2012, Pages 1421-1482

  Sanders, Steve ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LAW SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84861732974     PISSN: 00262234     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (395)

1. The states are Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont. Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships, Nat'l Conf. of State Legislatures, http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/human-services/same-sex-marriage-overview.aspx (last updated Feb. 13, 2012) [hereinafter Nat'l Conf. of State Legislatures]. As this Article was going to press, legislation had been approved in Maryland and the State of Washington to allow same-sex marriages, but the laws had not yet taken effect and opponents were preparing to attempt to repeal the laws by ballot initiative.
2. David Crary, Bruising Gay-Marriage Showdowns Likely in 5 States, Associated Press, Mar. 8, 2012, available at 2012 WLNR 5114280.
3. Census Bureau Releases Estimates of Same-Sex Married Couples, U.S. Census 2010 (Sept. 27, 2011), http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn181.html.
4. See Haya El Nasser & Paul Overberg, Millions More Americans Move to New States, USA Today, Nov. 30, 2007, http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-11-29-Mobility_N.htm (citing U.S. census data from 2003, 2005, and 2006).
5. Ind. Code Ann. § 31-11-1-1 (West 2008) (declaring same-sex marriages "void... even if the marriage is lawful in the place where it is solemnized").
6. See Haya El Nasser & Paul Overberg, Millions More Americans Move to New States, USA Today, Nov. 30, 2007, http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-11-29-Mobility_N.htm (citing U.S. census data from 2003, 2005, and 2006).
7. For example, Arkansas law provides that "[a]ll marriages contracted outside this state that would be valid by the laws of the state or country in which the marriages were consummated and in which the parties then actually resided shall be valid in all the courts in this state, " but that "[t]his section shall not apply to a marriage between persons of the same sex. " Ark. Code Ann. § 9-11-107(a)-(b) (2009). Missouri law states flatly that "[a]ny purported marriage not between a man and a woman is invalid, " and that "[a] marriage between persons of the same sex will not be recognized for any purpose in this state even when valid where contracted. " Mo. Ann. Stat. § 451.022(2), (4) (West 2003). And Ohio's mini-DOMA provides, "Any marriage entered into by persons of the same sex in any other jurisdiction shall be considered and treated in all respects as having no legal force or effect in this state and shall not be recognized by this state. " Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3101.01(C)(2) (West 2008).
8. Andrew Koppelman, The Limits of Strategic Litigation, 17 Law & Sexuality 1, 2 (2008).
9. The mainstream media have begun to notice the problem. See, e.g., John Schwartz, When Same-Sex Marriages End, N.Y. Times, July 2, 2011, available at http:// www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/sunday-review/03divorce.html.
10. See Corporate Equality Index 2012, Hum. Rts. Campaign, http:// www.hrc.org/resources/entry/corporate-equality-index-2011 (last visited Feb. 12, 2012).
11. As one way of facilitating mobility and freedom of choice for married couples, Adam Candeub and Mae Kuykendall have suggested that states should no longer require the parties' physical presence in the state before they will authorize a marriage, thereby "mak[ing] their marriage formation laws accessible to those beyond their physical boundaries. " Adam Candeub & Mae Kuykendall, Modernizing Marriage, 44 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 735, 741 (2011).
12. "Domicile" is effectively the legal "headquarters" of a person's life, used for determining which state's laws apply to her activities. See Eugene F. Scoles et al., Conflict of Laws 249 (4th ed. 2004).
13. "Domicile" is effectively the legal "headquarters" of a person's life, used for determining which state's laws apply to her activities. See Eugene F. Scoles et al., Conflict of Laws 249 (4th ed. 2004).
14. "Domicile" is effectively the legal "headquarters" of a person's life, used for determining which state's laws apply to her activities. See Eugene F. Scoles et al., Conflict of Laws 249 (4th ed. 2004).
15. "Domicile" is effectively the legal "headquarters" of a person's life, used for determining which state's laws apply to her activities. See Eugene F. Scoles et al., Conflict of Laws 249 (4th ed. 2004).
16. "Domicile" is effectively the legal "headquarters" of a person's life, used for determining which state's laws apply to her activities. See Eugene F. Scoles et al., Conflict of Laws 249 (4th ed. 2004).
17. "Domicile" is effectively the legal "headquarters" of a person's life, used for determining which state's laws apply to her activities. See Eugene F. Scoles et al., Conflict of Laws 249 (4th ed. 2004).
18. Zobel v. Williams, 457 U.S. 55, 76-77 (1982) (O'Connor, J., concurring in the judgment).
19. Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287, 299 (1942) (internal quotation marks omitted).
20. See Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967).
21. See, e.g., William Eskridge, Marriage Equality State by State, SCOTUSblog (Aug. 15, 2011, 1:50 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/08/marriage-equality-state-by-state/ (arguing that same-sex marriage is "an issue that now divides the country both intensely and evenly-and is therefore an issue that ought not be resolved one way or the other until public preferences become more settled").
22. Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines 153 (2006).
23. Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines 153 (2006).
24. I develop this point further in Steve Sanders, The Right to Marry, and the Right to Remain Married, SCOTUSblog (Aug. 23, 2011, 12:39 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/ 2011/08/the-right-to-marry-and-the-right-to-remain-married/.
25. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 734-35 (1878).
26. In re Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 593-94 (1890).
27. 262 U.S. 390 (1923).
28. 268 U.S. 510 (1925).
29. Meyer, 262 U.S. at 399.
30. Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944).
31. 388 U.S. 1 (1967).
32. Mary Ann Glendon, Marriage and the State: The Withering Away of Marriage, 62 Va. L. Rev. 663, 668 (1976).
33. Henry H. Foster, Jr., Marriage: A "Basic Civil Right of Man, " 37 Fordham L. Rev. 51, 51 (1968).
34. 434 U.S. 374 (1978) (striking down Wisconsin statute that prohibited deadbeat fathers from getting married without court approval).
35. 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (striking down regulation which prohibited prisoners from marrying other inmates or civilians).
36. 381 U.S. 479 (1965).
37. Griswold, 381 U.S. at 486.
38. Griswold, 381 U.S. at 486.
39. Henry H. Foster, Jr., Marriage: A "Basic Civil Right of Man, " 37 Fordham L. Rev. 51, 51 (1968).
40. Marriage historian Nancy Cott argues that far from imposing its own values, the Court was "just keeping pace with the upheavals in society. " Nancy F. Cott, Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation 199 (2000).
41. Katherine Shaw Spaht, The Last One Hundred Years: The Incredible Retreat of Law from the Regulation of Marriage, 63 La. L. Rev. 243, 243-44 (2003).
42. Marriage historian Nancy Cott argues that far from imposing its own values, the Court was "just keeping pace with the upheavals in society. " Nancy F. Cott, Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation 199 (2000).
43. 317 U.S. 287, 296-97 (1942).
44. Ann Laquer Estin, Family Law Federalism: Divorce and the Constitution, 16 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 381, 382 (2007).
45. Ann Laquer Estin, Family Law Federalism: Divorce and the Constitution, 16 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 381, 382 (2007).
46. Ann Laquer Estin, Family Law Federalism: Divorce and the Constitution, 16 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 381, 382 (2007).
47. 405 U.S. 438 (1972).
48. Eisenstadt, 405 U.S. at 453.
49. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 652 (1972).
50. 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
51. 431 U.S. 494 (1977) (plurality opinion).
52. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923).
53. Moore, 431 U.S. at 499.
54. Moore, 431 U.S. at 499.
55. Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992).
56. Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992).
57. 539 U.S. 558 (2003).
58. Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 567.
59. Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 567.
60. Mary Ann Glendon, Marriage and the State: The Withering Away of Marriage, 62 Va. L. Rev. 663, 668 (1976).
61. See Carl E. Schneider & Margaret F. Brinig, An Invitation to Family Law 180-184 (3d ed. 2007).
62. Lenore J. Weitzman, Legal Regulation of Marriage: Tradition and Change, 62 Calif. L. Rev. 1169, 1242-45 (1974).
63. Vivian Hamilton, Mistaking Marriage for Social Policy, 11 Va. J. Soc. Pol'y & L. 307, 323 (2004).
64. Brian H. Bix, Choice of Law and Marriage: A Proposal, 36 Fam. L.Q. 255, 267 (2002).
65. Brian H. Bix, Choice of Law and Marriage: A Proposal, 36 Fam. L.Q. 255, 267 (2002).
66. David L. Chambers, What If? The Legal Consequences of Marriage and the Legal Needs of Lesbian and Gay Male Couples, 95 Mich. L. Rev. 447, 453 (1996).
67. See, e.g., Monte Neil Stewart, Marriage Facts, 31 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 313, 316, 321-22 (2008) (describing "man-woman marriage" as "ancient" and arguing that it "uniquely" produces various "social goods, " such as "bridging the male-female divide" and giving "[s]ocial and official endorsement" to "heterosexual intercourse[, which] society may rationally value above all other such forms"). By contrast, other scholars have warned about "[t]he hazards of importing" male-dominated, nineteenth-century conceptions about marriage "to our twenty-first century moment. "
68. Mae Kuykendall & Adam Candeub, Symposium Overview: Perspectives on Innovative Marriage Procedure, 2011 Mich. St. L. Rev. 1, 11-12 (2011).
69. Marriage historian Nancy Cott argues that far from imposing its own values, the Court was "just keeping pace with the upheavals in society. " Nancy F. Cott, Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation 199 (2000).
70. Ann Laquer Estin, Family Law Federalism: Divorce and the Constitution, 16 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 381, 382 (2007).
71. See David D. Meyer, The Paradox of Family Privacy, 53 Vand. L. Rev. 527, 531-32 (2000) ("More than seventy-five years after the Supreme Court first began to carve out 'a private realm of family life which the state cannot enter,' the boundaries of that constitutional sanctuary remain decidedly unclear. " (quoting Smith v. Org. of Foster Families for Equal. & Reform, 431 U.S. 816, 842 (1977).
72. Andrew Koppelman, Same-Sex Marriage, Choice of Law, and Public Policy, 76 Tex. L. Rev. 921, 922 (1998).
73. Madewell v. United States, 84 F. Supp. 329, 332 (E.D. Tenn. 1949).
74. See Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 283(2) (1971) ("A marriage which satisfies the requirements of the state where the marriage was contracted will everywhere be recognized as valid unless it violates the strong public policy of another state which had the most significant relationship to the spouses and the marriage at the time of the marriage. "). This is not to say that some states did not still go ahead and recognize evasive marriages under the place of celebration rule, but just that they were less likely to do so.
75. See Patrick J. Borchers, The Essential Irrelevance of the Full Faith and Credit Clause to the Same-Sex Marriage Debate, 38 Creighton L. Rev. 353, 353-58 (2005).
76. See Patrick J. Borchers, The Essential Irrelevance of the Full Faith and Credit Clause to the Same-Sex Marriage Debate, 38 Creighton L. Rev. 353, 353-58 (2005).
77. See Patrick J. Borchers, The Essential Irrelevance of the Full Faith and Credit Clause to the Same-Sex Marriage Debate, 38 Creighton L. Rev. 353, 353-58 (2005).
78. Joanna L. Grossman, Resurrecting Comity: Revisiting the Problem of Non-Uniform Marriage Laws, 84 Or. L. Rev. 433, 461 (2005) (stating that, historically, "[a]ll jurisdictions followed some version of lex loci contractus in evaluating the validity of a marriage").
79. "Domicile" is effectively the legal "headquarters" of a person's life, used for determining which state's laws apply to her activities. See Eugene F. Scoles et al., Conflict of Laws 249 (4th ed. 2004).
80. Luther L. McDougal III et al., American Conflicts Law 713 (5th ed. 2001).
81. Henderson v. Henderson, 87 A.2d 403, 408 (Md. 1952).
82. William M. Richman & William L. Reynolds, Understanding Conflict of Laws 398 (3d ed. 2002).
83. Joseph William Singer, Same Sex Marriage, Full Faith and Credit, and the Evasion of Obligation, 1 Stan. J. C.R. & C.L. 1, 1, 6 (2009).
84. Joseph William Singer, Same Sex Marriage, Full Faith and Credit, and the Evasion of Obligation, 1 Stan. J. C.R. & C.L. 1, 1, 6 (2009).
85. Cropsey v. Ogden, 11 N.Y. 228, 236 (1854).
86. Joel Prentiss Bishop, New Commentaries on Marriage, Divorce, and Separation § 851 (1891).
87. Joel Prentiss Bishop, New Commentaries on Marriage, Divorce, and Separation § 851 (1891).
88. Joel Prentiss Bishop, New Commentaries on Marriage, Divorce, and Separation § 851 (1891).
89. Joanna L. Grossman, Resurrecting Comity: Revisiting the Problem of Non-Uniform Marriage Laws, 84 Or. L. Rev. 433, 461 (2005) (stating that, historically, "[a]ll jurisdictions followed some version of lex loci contractus in evaluating the validity of a marriage").
90. Joel Prentiss Bishop, New Commentaries on Marriage, Divorce, and Separation § 851 (1891).
91. Joel Prentiss Bishop, New Commentaries on Marriage, Divorce, and Separation § 851 (1891).
92. Joanna L. Grossman, Resurrecting Comity: Revisiting the Problem of Non-Uniform Marriage Laws, 84 Or. L. Rev. 433, 461 (2005) (stating that, historically, "[a]ll jurisdictions followed some version of lex loci contractus in evaluating the validity of a marriage").
93. Loucks v. Standard Oil Co., 120 N.E. 198, 201-02 (N.Y. 1918).
94. Loucks v. Standard Oil Co., 120 N.E. 198, 201-02 (N.Y. 1918).
95. Loucks v. Standard Oil Co., 120 N.E. 198, 201-02 (N.Y. 1918).
96. See Patrick J. Borchers, The Essential Irrelevance of the Full Faith and Credit Clause to the Same-Sex Marriage Debate, 38 Creighton L. Rev. 353, 353-58 (2005).
97. "Domicile" is effectively the legal "headquarters" of a person's life, used for determining which state's laws apply to her activities. See Eugene F. Scoles et al., Conflict of Laws 249 (4th ed. 2004).
98. Joseph William Singer, Same Sex Marriage, Full Faith and Credit, and the Evasion of Obligation, 1 Stan. J. C.R. & C.L. 1, 1, 6 (2009).
99. See Barbara J. Cox, Same-Sex Marriage and the Public Policy Exception in Choiceof-Law: Does It Really Exist?, 16 Quinnipiac L. Rev. 61 (1996).
100. See Barbara J. Cox, Same-Sex Marriage and the Public Policy Exception in Choiceof-Law: Does It Really Exist?, 16 Quinnipiac L. Rev. 61 (1996).
101. see also F.H. Buckley & Larry E. Ribstein, Calling a Truce in the Marriage Wars, 2001 U. Ill. L. Rev. 561, 568 (2001) (observing that "courts frequently uphold marriages that are valid where made but barred by the internal domicile law").
102. Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines 153 (2006).
103. Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines 153 (2006).
104. Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines 153 (2006).
105. Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines 153 (2006).
106. Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines 153 (2006).
107. See Jessica Bennett, Only You. And You. And You: Polyamory-Relationships with Multiple, Mutually Consenting Partners-Has a Coming-Out Party, Newsweek, July 28, 2009, available at http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/07/28/only-you-and-youand-you.html.
108. Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines 153 (2006).
109. Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines 153 (2006).
110. Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines 153 (2006).
111. Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines 153 (2006).
112. 114 N.E.2d 4 (N.Y. 1953).
113. In re May's Estate, 114 N.E.2d at 7.
114. Ghassemi v. Ghassemi, 998 So. 2d 731, 749-50 (La. Ct. App. 2008).
115. The Louisiana Constitution not only provides that marriage "shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman, " it also bars recognition of civil unions, domestic partnerships, and possibly private contractual arrangements between same-sex partners by declaring that "[a] legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized. " La. Const. art. XII, § 15.
116. Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 283(2) (1971) (emphasis added).
117. See Nate Silver, Gay Marriage Opponents Now in Minority, NYTimes. com (Apr. 20, 2011, 11:18 AM), http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/20/gay-marriageopponents-now-in-minority/ (reporting on "the fourth credible poll in the past eight months to show an outright majority of Americans in favor of gay marriage").
118. Margaret Talbot, A Risky Proposal, New Yorker, Jan. 18. 2010, at 40, available at http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/01/18/100118fa_fact_talbot.
119. Steve Sanders, DOJ Abandons Defense of the 'Defense of Marriage Act': First Thoughts, U. Chi. Law Sch. Fac. Blog (Feb. 23, 2011, 2:06 PM), http://uchicagolaw. typepad.com/faculty/2011/02/doj-abandons-defense-of-the-defense-of-marriage-act-firstthoughts. html.
120. See Marriage Equality & Other Relationship Recognition Laws, Hum. Rts. Campaign (July 6, 2011), http://www.hrc.org/documents/Relationship_Recognition_Laws_ Map.pdf.
121. See Haya El Nasser & Paul Overberg, Millions More Americans Move to New States, USA Today, Nov. 30, 2007, http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-11-29-Mobility_N.htm (citing U.S. census data from 2003, 2005, and 2006).
122. See Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44, 67 (Haw. 1993).
123. See Haw. Const. art. 1, § 23.
124. 28 U.S.C. § 1738C (2006).
125. Joanna L. Grossman, Resurrecting Comity: Revisiting the Problem of Non-Uniform Marriage Laws, 84 Or. L. Rev. 433, 461 (2005) (stating that, historically, "[a]ll jurisdictions followed some version of lex loci contractus in evaluating the validity of a marriage").
126. E.g., Larry Kramer, Same-Sex Marriage, Conflict of Laws, and the Unconstitutional Public Policy Exception, 106 Yale L.J. 1965, 1972 (1997) ("After all, it makes absolutely no difference from the perspective of either the parties or other states whether the decision that some law is too offensive to apply comes from a state's courts or from its legislature. ").
127. Linda Silberman, Same-Sex Marriage: Refining the Conflict of Laws Analysis, 153 U. Pa. L. Rev. 2195, 2214 (2005).
128. Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines 153 (2006).
129. Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines 153 (2006).
130. U.S. Const. art. 4, § 1.
131. E.g., Larry Kramer, Same-Sex Marriage, Conflict of Laws, and the Unconstitutional Public Policy Exception, 106 Yale L.J. 1965, 1972 (1997) ("After all, it makes absolutely no difference from the perspective of either the parties or other states whether the decision that some law is too offensive to apply comes from a state's courts or from its legislature. ").
132. Joel Prentiss Bishop, New Commentaries on Marriage, Divorce, and Separation § 851 (1891).
133. See Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 2009).
134. L. Lynn Hogue, Examining a Strand of the Public Policy Exception with Constitutional Underpinnings: How the "Foreign Marriage Recognition Exception" Affects the Interjurisdictional Recognition of Same-Sex "Marriage", 38 Creighton L. Rev. 449, 452 (2005).
135. L. Lynn Hogue, Examining a Strand of the Public Policy Exception with Constitutional Underpinnings: How the "Foreign Marriage Recognition Exception" Affects the Interjurisdictional Recognition of Same-Sex "Marriage", 38 Creighton L. Rev. 449, 452 (2005).
136. Andrew Koppelman, Interstate Recognition of Same-Sex Marriages and Civil Unions: A Handbook for Judges, 153 U. Pa. L. Rev. 2143, 2144 (2005).
137. Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines 153 (2006).
138. Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines 153 (2006).
139. Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines 153 (2006).
140. Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines 153 (2006).
141. Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines 153 (2006).
142. see also Michael E. Solimine, Interstate Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage, the Public Policy Exception, and Clear Statements of Extraterritorial Effect, 41 Cal. W. Int'l L.J. 105, 135 (2010) ("[M]ini-DOMAs should not be presumed to affect the recognition of extraterritorial same-sex marriages, unless they explicitly so state. ").
143. Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines 153 (2006).
144. See Brenda Cossman, Betwixt and Between Recognition: Migrating Same-Sex Marriages and the Turn Toward the Private, 71 Law & Contemp. Probs., Summer 2008, at 153, 161 ("Although the conflicts scholars produce sophisticated arguments... the courts by and large ignore these doctrinal disputes and arguments, deciding the cases on the basis of a state's stated opposition to same-sex marriage. "). In the end, it is "the underlying politics of same-sex marriage, " not any legal rule or doctrine, that is "dispositive. "
145. Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines 153 (2006).
146. Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines 153 (2006).
147. We should also remember that "[t]he courts of each state are active participants in the formulation and implementation of local policies. To place in their hands extensive responsibility for deciding when those policies will yield to and when they will prevail over the competing policies of sister states seems unsound. " William F. Baxter, Choice of Law and the Federal System, 16 Stan. L. Rev. 1, 23 (1963).
148. Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines 153 (2006).
149. See Steve Sanders, Interstate Recognition of Parent-Child Relationships: The Limits of the State Interests Paradigm and the Role of Due Process, 2011 U. Chi. Legal F. 233, 234 (2011).
150. Symeon C. Symeonides, The American Choice-of-Law Revolution 405 (2006).
151. Gerhard Kegel, Paternal Home and Dream Home: Traditional Conflict of Laws and the American Reformers, 27 Am. J. Comp. L. 615, 616 (1979) (internal quotation marks omitted).
152. Matthias Lehmann, Liberating the Individual from Battles between States: Justifying Party Autonomy in Conflict of Laws, 41 Vand. J. Transnat'l L. 381, 382-83 (2008).
153. Matthias Lehmann, Liberating the Individual from Battles between States: Justifying Party Autonomy in Conflict of Laws, 41 Vand. J. Transnat'l L. 381, 382-83 (2008).
154. Matthias Lehmann, Liberating the Individual from Battles between States: Justifying Party Autonomy in Conflict of Laws, 41 Vand. J. Transnat'l L. 381, 382-83 (2008).
155. Matthias Lehmann, Liberating the Individual from Battles between States: Justifying Party Autonomy in Conflict of Laws, 41 Vand. J. Transnat'l L. 381, 382-83 (2008).
156. Lea Brilmayer, Rights, Fairness, and Choice of Law, 98 Yale L.J. 1277, 1277 (1989).
157. Lea Brilmayer, Rights, Fairness, and Choice of Law, 98 Yale L.J. 1277, 1277 (1989).
158. Terry S. Kogan, Toward a Jurisprudence of Choice of Law: The Priority of Fairness Over Comity, 62 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 651, 681 (1987).
159. Scott Fruehwald, Constitutional Constraints on State Choice of Law, 24 U. Dayton L. Rev. 39, 56-57 (1998).
160. Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 283 cmt. b (1971).
161. Lynn D. Wardle, From Slavery to Same-Sex Marriage: Comity Versus Public Policy in Inter-Jurisdictional Recognition of Controversial Domestic Relations, 2008 BYU L. Rev. 1855, 1903-04 (2008).
162. Lynn D. Wardle, From Slavery to Same-Sex Marriage: Comity Versus Public Policy in Inter-Jurisdictional Recognition of Controversial Domestic Relations, 2008 BYU L. Rev. 1855, 1903-04 (2008).
163. Gene R. Shreve, Choice of Law and the Forgiving Constitution, 71 Ind. L.J. 271, 271 (1996).
164. James Y. Stern, Note, Choice of Law, the Constitution, and Lochner, 94 Va. L. Rev. 1509, 1510 (2008).
165. See Wilson v. Ake, 354 F. Supp. 2d 1298 (M.D. Fla. 2005).
166. See Wilson v. Ake, 354 F. Supp. 2d 1298 (M.D. Fla. 2005).
167. See Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 2-5 (1967). To recount the story briefly, in 1958, Mildred Jeter, an African-American woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, married in Washington, D.C., then returned to Virginia and established their home. Virginia not only refused to recognize interracial marriages, it criminalized them. The Lovings were prosecuted and pled guilty. The judge suspended their sentence on the condition that they leave the state. The Lovings' legal fight to return home to Virginia took them all the way to the Supreme Court. My thanks to Mae Kuykendall for the point that Loving was a recognition case.
168. Joseph William Singer, Same Sex Marriage, Full Faith and Credit, and the Evasion of Obligation, 1 Stan. J. C.R. & C.L. 1, 1, 6 (2009).
169. Martinez v. Cnty. of Monroe, 850 N.Y.S.2d 740, 742 (App. Div. 2008) (citations omitted).
170. Joanna L. Grossman, New York's Highest Court Upholds Benefits for Same-Sex Spouses in Narrow Ruling, FindLaw (Nov. 24, 2009), http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20091124.html (emphasis added).
171. Carlos A. Ball, The Positive in the Fundamental Right to Marry: Same-Sex Marriage in the Aftermath of Lawrence v. Texas, 88 Minn. L. Rev. 1184, 1187, 1206 (2004).
172. David B. Cruz, "Just Don't Call It Marriage": The First Amendment and Marriage as an Expressive Resource, 74 S. Cal. L. Rev. 925, 928-929 (2001).
173. Goodridge v. Dep't of Pub. Health, 798 N.E.2d 941, 954 (Mass. 2003).
174. Marriage historian Nancy Cott argues that far from imposing its own values, the Court was "just keeping pace with the upheavals in society. " Nancy F. Cott, Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation 199 (2000).
175. Marc R. Poirier, The Cultural Property Claim within the Same-Sex Marriage Controversy, 17 Colum. J. Gender & L. 343, 359 (2008).
176. Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 386 (1978).
177. Nelson Tebbe & Deborah A. Widiss, Equal Access and the Right To Marry, 158 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1375, 1386-87 (2010).
178. Cass R. Sunstein, The Right To Marry, 26 Cardozo L. Rev. 2081, 2118 (2005).
179. Cass R. Sunstein, The Right To Marry, 26 Cardozo L. Rev. 2081, 2118 (2005).
180. Cass R. Sunstein, The Right To Marry, 26 Cardozo L. Rev. 2081, 2118 (2005).
181. Cass R. Sunstein, The Right To Marry, 26 Cardozo L. Rev. 2081, 2118 (2005).
182. Richard A. Posner, Sex and Reason 335 (1992).
183. See Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 618 (1984).
184. See Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 578 (2003).
185. Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110, 123 (1989) (plurality opinion).
186. Randy E. Barnett, Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty (2004).
187. Randy E. Barnett, Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty (2004).
188. cf. Randy E. Barnett, Justice Kennedy's Libertarian Revolution: Lawrence v. Texas, 2003 Cato Sup. Ct. Rev. 21, 21 (2003) ("If the approach the Court took in the case is followed in other cases in the future, we have in Lawrence nothing short of a constitutional revolution, with implications reaching far beyond the 'personal liberty' at issue here. ").
189. Robert J. Delahunty & Antonio F. Perez, Moral Communities or a Market State: The Supreme Court's Vision of the Police Power in the Age of Globalization, 42 Hous. L. Rev. 637, 690 (2005) (arguing that "the Court's individual rights jurisprudence has moved away in recent years from recognizing the beliefs and practices of the community as sources of normativity and value and as a legitimate basis for legislation" and that the Court "seems inclined... to constitutionalize much of John Stuart Mill's libertarianism").
190. Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 397 n.1 (1978) (Powell, J., concurring) (emphasis added).
191. See David D. Meyer, The Paradox of Family Privacy, 53 Vand. L. Rev. 527, 531-32 (2000) ("More than seventy-five years after the Supreme Court first began to carve out 'a private realm of family life which the state cannot enter,' the boundaries of that constitutional sanctuary remain decidedly unclear. " (quoting Smith v. Org. of Foster Families for Equal. & Reform, 431 U.S. 816, 842 (1977).
192. See Lois A. Weithorn, Can a Subsequent Change in Law Void a Marriage that Was Valid at Its Inception? Considering the Legal Effect of Proposition 8 on California's Existing Same-Sex Marriages, 60 Hastings L.J. 1063, 1098 (2009) (arguing that "marital law is structured to reinforce" the expectation that a marriage should endure, and "[i]t would, therefore, be strange indeed... for the state to suddenly become a unilateral force mandating retroactive voiding of marriages that were unquestionably valid at their inception").
193. Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines 153 (2006).
194. Stanley E. Cox, Nine Questions About Same-Sex Marriage Conflicts, 40 New Eng. L. Rev. 361, 374 (2006).
195. See Joanna L. Grossman, No Gay Divorcees in Texas: An Appellate Court Refuses to Dissolve a Same-Sex Marriage, FindLaw (Sept. 13, 2010), http://writ.corporate. findlaw.com/grossman/20100913.html ("Can a couple that marries in one jurisdiction get divorced in another?... [F]or same-sex couples, the answer is no better than 'Maybe' (and in many cases, it is clearly 'No') due to the patchwork of inconsistent state laws regarding samesex marriage.").
196. Nancy J. Knauer, Same-Sex Marriage and Federalism, 17 Temp. Pol. & Civ. Rts. L. Rev. 421, 439 (2008) (footnote omitted).
197. See Steve Sanders, Interstate Recognition of Parent-Child Relationships: The Limits of the State Interests Paradigm and the Role of Due Process, 2011 U. Chi. Legal F. 233, 234 (2011).
198. Mark D. Rosen, Why the Defense of Marriage Act Is Not (Yet?) Unconstitutional: Lawrence, Full Faith and Credit, and the Many Societal Actors that Determine What the Constitution Requires, 90 Minn. L. Rev. 915, 997 (2006).
199. Mark D. Rosen, Why the Defense of Marriage Act Is Not (Yet?) Unconstitutional: Lawrence, Full Faith and Credit, and the Many Societal Actors that Determine What the Constitution Requires, 90 Minn. L. Rev. 915, 997 (2006).
200. L. Lynn Hogue, State Common-Law Choice-of-Law Doctrine and Same-Sex "Marriage": How Will States Enforce the Public Policy Exception?, 32 Creighton L. Rev. 29, 37 (1998).
201. Scott Fruehwald, Constitutional Constraints on State Choice of Law, 24 U. Dayton L. Rev. 39, 56-57 (1998).
202. Lea Brilmayer, Rights, Fairness, and Choice of Law, 98 Yale L.J. 1277, 1277 (1989).
203. See David D. Meyer, A Privacy Right to Public Recognition of Family Relationships? The Cases of Marriage and Adoption, 51 Vill. L. Rev. 891, 915 (2006).
204. See David D. Meyer, A Privacy Right to Public Recognition of Family Relationships? The Cases of Marriage and Adoption, 51 Vill. L. Rev. 891, 915 (2006).
205. See David D. Meyer, A Privacy Right to Public Recognition of Family Relationships? The Cases of Marriage and Adoption, 51 Vill. L. Rev. 891, 915 (2006).
206. Randy E. Barnett, Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty (2004).
207. Randy E. Barnett, Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty (2004).
208. Randy E. Barnett, Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty (2004).
209. Witt v. Dep't of the Air Force, 527 F.3d 806, 817 (9th Cir. 2008).
210. 539 U.S. 166 (2003).
211. Sell, 539 U.S. at 178 (quoting Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 221 (1990) (internal quotation marks omitted).
212. Sell, 539 U.S. at 178 (quoting Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 221 (1990) (internal quotation marks omitted).
213. Witt, 527 F.3d at 819.
214. Witt, 527 F.3d at 819.
215. My thanks to Will Baude for this point.
216. Cass R. Sunstein, Sexual Orientation and the Constitution: A Note on the Relationship between Due Process and Equal Protection, 55 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1161, 1163 (1988).
217. Cass R. Sunstein, Sexual Orientation and the Constitution: A Note on the Relationship between Due Process and Equal Protection, 55 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1161, 1163 (1988).
218. Kenneth L. Karst, The Liberties of Equal Citizens: Groups and the Due Process Clause, 55 UCLA L. Rev. 99, 102 (2007).
219. Kenneth L. Karst, The Liberties of Equal Citizens: Groups and the Due Process Clause, 55 UCLA L. Rev. 99, 102 (2007).
220. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 575 (2003).
221. Kenji Yoshino, The New Equal Protection, 124 Harv. L. Rev. 747, 750 (2011).
222. See Jessica Bennett, Only You. And You. And You: Polyamory-Relationships with Multiple, Mutually Consenting Partners-Has a Coming-Out Party, Newsweek, July 28, 2009, available at http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/07/28/only-you-and-youand-you.html.
223. Amy Fry, Comment, Polygamy in America: How the Varying Legal Standards Fail to Protect Mothers and Children from Its Abuses, 54 St. Louis U. L.J. 967, 969 (2010).
224. Elizabeth Larcano, Note, A "Pink" Herring: The Prospect of Polygamy Following the Legalization of Same-Sex Marriage, 38 Conn. L. Rev. 1065, 1068 (2006).
225. In re Estate of Lenherr, 314 A.2d 255, 258 (Pa. 1974).
226. see also Margaret F. Brinig & June Carbone, The Reliance Interest in Marriage and Divorce, 62 Tul. L. Rev. 855, 856 (1988) ("[T]he law of domestic relations-like the law governing many other consensual relationships-has always protected the 'reliance interest,' that is, the parties' change of position in reliance on the joint enterprise. ").
227. Michael H. Gottesman, Draining the Dismal Swamp: The Case for Federal Choice of Law Statutes, 80 Geo. L.J. 1, 12-13 (1991).
228. See Patrick J. Borchers, The Essential Irrelevance of the Full Faith and Credit Clause to the Same-Sex Marriage Debate, 38 Creighton L. Rev. 353, 353-58 (2005).
229. "Domicile" is effectively the legal "headquarters" of a person's life, used for determining which state's laws apply to her activities. See Eugene F. Scoles et al., Conflict of Laws 249 (4th ed. 2004).
230. See Larry Kramer, Rethinking Choice of Law, 90 Colum. L. Rev. 277, 336 (1990) (explaining that parties' "reasonable expectations" are protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, at least when the expectations are "so widely shared as to be uncontroversial").
231. Brandon R. Johnson, Note, "Emerging Awareness" After the Emergence of Roberts: Reasonable Societal Reliance in Substantive Due Process Inquiry, 71 Brook. L. Rev. 1587, 1591 (2006) (describing reasonable societal reliance as "citizens hav[ing] developed a real and rational trust in the protected nature" of certain practices (emphasis omitted).
232. Brandon R. Johnson, Note, "Emerging Awareness" After the Emergence of Roberts: Reasonable Societal Reliance in Substantive Due Process Inquiry, 71 Brook. L. Rev. 1587, 1591 (2006) (describing reasonable societal reliance as "citizens hav[ing] developed a real and rational trust in the protected nature" of certain practices (emphasis omitted).
233. Gene R. Shreve, Choice of Law and the Forgiving Constitution, 71 Ind. L.J. 271, 271 (1996).
234. Brandon R. Johnson, Note, "Emerging Awareness" After the Emergence of Roberts: Reasonable Societal Reliance in Substantive Due Process Inquiry, 71 Brook. L. Rev. 1587, 1591 (2006) (describing reasonable societal reliance as "citizens hav[ing] developed a real and rational trust in the protected nature" of certain practices (emphasis omitted).
235. Strauss v. Horton, 207 P.3d 48, 122 (Cal. 2009).
236. see also Callahan v. Callahan, 15 S.E. 727, 731 (S.C. 1892) ("[W]ithout entering now into the argument whether marriage is only a political and social status, we cannot doubt that, whatever else it may be, under our law, it is as well 'a civil contract,' and confers valuable vested rights. "). Most state courts have rejected the idea that spouses have a vested right in the status of marriage itself, though many of these cases date back to a time when the authority of the state over marriage was considered absolute.
237. See, e.g., Noel v. Ewing, 9 Ind. 37, 50 (1857) ("[A]s between husband and wife, there is no constitutional provision protecting the marriage itself, or the property incident to it, from legislative control, by general law, upon such terms as public policy may dictate. ").
238. Alternatively, one commentator suggests that an extant marriage should be regarded as private property protected by the Takings Clause. Goutam U. Jois, Note, Marital Status as Property: Toward a New Jurisprudence for Gay Rights, 41 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 509 (2006).
239. Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970).
240. Bd. of Regents of State Colls. v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 576-77 (1972).
241. Bd. of Regents of State Colls. v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 576-77 (1972).
242. That is, unless one looks all the way back to Dred Scott, but that seems a dubious precedent to rely on. See Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 450-51 (1857) (discussing constitutional protection for the right to transport property, in the form of a slave, from one state to another).
243. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965).
244. Developments in the Law-The Law of Marriage and Family, 116 Harv. L. Rev. 1996, 2051 (2003).
245. E.g., Larry Kramer, Same-Sex Marriage, Conflict of Laws, and the Unconstitutional Public Policy Exception, 106 Yale L.J. 1965, 1972 (1997) ("After all, it makes absolutely no difference from the perspective of either the parties or other states whether the decision that some law is too offensive to apply comes from a state's courts or from its legislature. ").
246. The states are Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont. Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships, Nat'l Conf. of State Legislatures, http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/human-services/same-sex-marriage-overview.aspx (last updated Feb. 13, 2012) [hereinafter Nat'l Conf. of State Legislatures]. As this Article was going to press, legislation had been approved in Maryland and the State of Washington to allow same-sex marriages, but the laws had not yet taken effect and opponents were preparing to attempt to repeal the laws by ballot initiative.
247. The states are Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont. Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships, Nat'l Conf. of State Legislatures, http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/human-services/same-sex-marriage-overview.aspx (last updated Feb. 13, 2012) [hereinafter Nat'l Conf. of State Legislatures]. As this Article was going to press, legislation had been approved in Maryland and the State of Washington to allow same-sex marriages, but the laws had not yet taken effect and opponents were preparing to attempt to repeal the laws by ballot initiative.
248. The states are Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont. Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships, Nat'l Conf. of State Legislatures, http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/human-services/same-sex-marriage-overview.aspx (last updated Feb. 13, 2012) [hereinafter Nat'l Conf. of State Legislatures]. As this Article was going to press, legislation had been approved in Maryland and the State of Washington to allow same-sex marriages, but the laws had not yet taken effect and opponents were preparing to attempt to repeal the laws by ballot initiative.
249. At the same time, California's ban on samesex marriage was tied up in protracted federal litigation. Adam Nagourney, Court Strikes Down Ban on Gay Marriage in California, N.Y. Times (Feb. 7, 2012), at A1 (discussing the intent of the litigants to bring the case to the Supreme Court).
250. Other commentators have agreed that migratory same-sex couples are entitled to the benefit of a reasonable expectations rule concerning their marriages. For example, Linda Silberman writes that "[b]ecause of the reliance and expectation interests of the parties that their marriage was valid under the law of the state of 'domicile at the time of marriage,' that rule would be the preferable one to govern the incidents of marriage [in a new state]. " Linda J. Silberman, Can the Island of Hawaii Bind the World? A Comment on Same-Sex Marriage and Federalism Values, 16 Quinnipiac L. Rev. 191, 203 (1996).
251. Ann Laquer Estin, Marriage and Belonging, 100 Mich. L. Rev. 1690, 1707 (2002) (reviewing Nancy F. Cott, Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation (2000).
252. Ann Laquer Estin, Marriage and Belonging, 100 Mich. L. Rev. 1690, 1707 (2002) (reviewing Nancy F. Cott, Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation (2000).
253. Kenneth L. Karst, The Freedom of Intimate Association, 89 Yale L.J. 624, 648-49 (1980).
254. See Lois A. Weithorn, Can a Subsequent Change in Law Void a Marriage that Was Valid at Its Inception? Considering the Legal Effect of Proposition 8 on California's Existing Same-Sex Marriages, 60 Hastings L.J. 1063, 1098 (2009) (arguing that "marital law is structured to reinforce" the expectation that a marriage should endure, and "[i]t would, therefore, be strange indeed... for the state to suddenly become a unilateral force mandating retroactive voiding of marriages that were unquestionably valid at their inception").
255. Vivian Hamilton, Mistaking Marriage for Social Policy, 11 Va. J. Soc. Pol'y & L. 307, 323 (2004).
256. E.g., Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992) (quoting Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944).
257. Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977) (plurality opinion).
258. See Pala Hersey, Moore v. City of East Cleveland: The Supreme Court's Fractured Paean to the Extended Family, 14 J. Contemp. Legal Issues 57, 61-62 (2004) ("[Moore] has figured prominently as a precedent in several Supreme Court decisions dealing with 'family privacy' arguments on behalf of nontraditional relationships. More broadly, the Moore plurality's position has played a prominent role in some of the Court's most important decisions on Substantive Due Process.... " (footnote omitted).
259. Moore, 431 U.S. at 499.
260. Moore, 431 U.S. at 499.
261. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753, 769 (1982).
262. Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 211 (1888).
263. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923).
264. Pierce v. Soc'y of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925).
265. E.g., Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110, 123 (1989) (plurality opinion).
266. Robert J. Delahunty & Antonio F. Perez, Moral Communities or a Market State: The Supreme Court's Vision of the Police Power in the Age of Globalization, 42 Hous. L. Rev. 637, 690 (2005) (arguing that "the Court's individual rights jurisprudence has moved away in recent years from recognizing the beliefs and practices of the community as sources of normativity and value and as a legitimate basis for legislation" and that the Court "seems inclined... to constitutionalize much of John Stuart Mill's libertarianism").
267. See David D. Meyer, The Paradox of Family Privacy, 53 Vand. L. Rev. 527, 531-32 (2000) ("More than seventy-five years after the Supreme Court first began to carve out 'a private realm of family life which the state cannot enter,' the boundaries of that constitutional sanctuary remain decidedly unclear. " (quoting Smith v. Org. of Foster Families for Equal. & Reform, 431 U.S. 816, 842 (1977).
268. See David D. Meyer, The Paradox of Family Privacy, 53 Vand. L. Rev. 527, 531-32 (2000) ("More than seventy-five years after the Supreme Court first began to carve out 'a private realm of family life which the state cannot enter,' the boundaries of that constitutional sanctuary remain decidedly unclear. " (quoting Smith v. Org. of Foster Families for Equal. & Reform, 431 U.S. 816, 842 (1977).
269. See David D. Meyer, The Paradox of Family Privacy, 53 Vand. L. Rev. 527, 531-32 (2000) ("More than seventy-five years after the Supreme Court first began to carve out 'a private realm of family life which the state cannot enter,' the boundaries of that constitutional sanctuary remain decidedly unclear. " (quoting Smith v. Org. of Foster Families for Equal. & Reform, 431 U.S. 816, 842 (1977).
270. See David D. Meyer, The Paradox of Family Privacy, 53 Vand. L. Rev. 527, 531-32 (2000) ("More than seventy-five years after the Supreme Court first began to carve out 'a private realm of family life which the state cannot enter,' the boundaries of that constitutional sanctuary remain decidedly unclear. " (quoting Smith v. Org. of Foster Families for Equal. & Reform, 431 U.S. 816, 842 (1977).
271. See David D. Meyer, The Paradox of Family Privacy, 53 Vand. L. Rev. 527, 531-32 (2000) ("More than seventy-five years after the Supreme Court first began to carve out 'a private realm of family life which the state cannot enter,' the boundaries of that constitutional sanctuary remain decidedly unclear. " (quoting Smith v. Org. of Foster Families for Equal. & Reform, 431 U.S. 816, 842 (1977).
272. See David D. Meyer, The Paradox of Family Privacy, 53 Vand. L. Rev. 527, 531-32 (2000) ("More than seventy-five years after the Supreme Court first began to carve out 'a private realm of family life which the state cannot enter,' the boundaries of that constitutional sanctuary remain decidedly unclear. " (quoting Smith v. Org. of Foster Families for Equal. & Reform, 431 U.S. 816, 842 (1977).
273. See David D. Meyer, The Paradox of Family Privacy, 53 Vand. L. Rev. 527, 531-32 (2000) ("More than seventy-five years after the Supreme Court first began to carve out 'a private realm of family life which the state cannot enter,' the boundaries of that constitutional sanctuary remain decidedly unclear. " (quoting Smith v. Org. of Foster Families for Equal. & Reform, 431 U.S. 816, 842 (1977).
274. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 578 (2003) (quoting Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 847 (1992).
275. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 578 (2003) (quoting Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 847 (1992).
276. Robert C. Post, Foreword, Fashioning the Legal Constitution: Culture, Courts, and Law, 117 Harv. L. Rev. 4, 102 (2003).
277. Robert C. Post, Foreword, Fashioning the Legal Constitution: Culture, Courts, and Law, 117 Harv. L. Rev. 4, 102 (2003).
278. Laurence H. Tribe, Lawrence v. Texas: The "Fundamental Right" that Dare Not Speak Its Name, 117 Harv. L. Rev. 1893, 1955 (2004) (emphasis omitted).
279. Matthew Coles, Lawrence v. Texas & the Refinement of Substantive Due Process, 16 Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev. 23, 24 (2005).
280. Jeb Rubenfeld, The Right of Privacy, 102 Harv. L. Rev. 737, 739 (1989).
281. Jeb Rubenfeld, The Right of Privacy, 102 Harv. L. Rev. 737, 739 (1989).
282. Jeb Rubenfeld, The Right of Privacy, 102 Harv. L. Rev. 737, 739 (1989).
283. Jeb Rubenfeld, The Right of Privacy, 102 Harv. L. Rev. 737, 739 (1989).
284. Jeb Rubenfeld, The Right of Privacy, 102 Harv. L. Rev. 737, 739 (1989).
285. Richard A. Posner, Sex and Reason 335 (1992).
286. Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, 205 (1986) (Blackmun, J., dissenting).
287. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 485 (1965) (internal quotation marks omitted).
288. Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 498 (1977) (plurality opinion).
289. Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417, 452 (1990).
290. Daniel O. Conkle, Three Theories of Substantive Due Process, 85 N.C. L. Rev. 63, 95 (2006) (emphasis omitted).
291. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 721 (1997).
292. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 572 (2003) (quoting Cnty. of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 857 (1998) (Kennedy, J., concurring).
293. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 572 (2003) (quoting Cnty. of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 857 (1998) (Kennedy, J., concurring).
294. Cropsey v. Ogden, 11 N.Y. 228, 236 (1854).
295. Joel Prentiss Bishop, New Commentaries on Marriage, Divorce, and Separation § 851 (1891).
296. 478 U.S. 186 (1986).
297. Bowers, 478 U.S. at 190.
298. Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 567.
299. See Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937).
300. Loucks v. Standard Oil Co., 120 N.E. 198, 201 (N.Y. 1918).
301. Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines 153 (2006).
302. Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines 153 (2006).
303. Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines 153 (2006).
304. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.
305. 455 U.S. 745 (1982).
306. Santosky, 455 U.S. at 753.
307. Santosky, 455 U.S. at 753.
308. Santosky, 455 U.S. at 753.
309. Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 211 (1888).
310. Ditson v. Ditson, 4 R.I. 87, 101 (1856).
311. "Domicile" is effectively the legal "headquarters" of a person's life, used for determining which state's laws apply to her activities. See Eugene F. Scoles et al., Conflict of Laws 249 (4th ed. 2004).
312. Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376 (1971).
313. 419 U.S. 393 (1975).
314. Sosna, 419 U.S. at 406-07.
315. Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 708-09 (1976).
316. Harry D. Krause et al., Family Law 86 (6th ed. 2007) (emphasis omitted).
317. James Y. Stern, Note, Choice of Law, the Constitution, and Lochner, 94 Va. L. Rev. 1509, 1510 (2008).
318. Thomas M. Cooley, A Treatise on the Constitutional Limitations Which Rest upon the Legislative Power of the States of the American Union 127-28 (1868).
319. James Y. Stern, Note, Choice of Law, the Constitution, and Lochner, 94 Va. L. Rev. 1509, 1510 (2008).
320. See Ind. Code Ann. § 31-11-1-1 (West 2008) (declaring same-sex marriages "void... even if the marriage is lawful in the place where it is solemnized").
321. See, e.g., United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 615 (2000) (referring to "family law" as an "area[] of traditional state regulation").
322. Kristin A. Collins, Federalism's Fallacy: The Early Tradition of Federal Family Law and the Invention of States' Rights, 26 Cardozo L. Rev. 1761, 1768 (2005).
323. see also Jill Elaine Hasday, Federalism and the Family Reconstructed, 45 UCLA L. Rev. 1297, 1298 (1998) ("[E]xclusive localism in family law simply misdescribes American history.... ").
324. Ann Laquer Estin, Sharing Governance: Family Law in Congress and the States, 18 Cornell J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 267, 274 (2009).
325. Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287, 298 (1942).
326. Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines 153 (2006).
327. See Williams, 317 U.S. at 303.
328. See Williams, 317 U.S. at 303.
329. Williams, 317 U.S. at 304.
330. Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U.S. 562, 564-65 (1906).
331. Williams v. North Carolina (Williams II), 325 U.S. 226, 230 (1945).
332. Williams v. North Carolina (Williams II), 325 U.S. 226, 230 (1945).
333. See Williams, 317 U.S. at 293-94.
334. Ann Laquer Estin, Family Law Federalism: Divorce and the Constitution, 16 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 381, 382 (2007).
335. Ann Laquer Estin, Family Law Federalism: Divorce and the Constitution, 16 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 381, 382 (2007).
336. Ann Laquer Estin, Family Law Federalism: Divorce and the Constitution, 16 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 381, 382 (2007).
337. Anne C. Dailey, Federalism and Families, 143 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1787, 1795 (1995).
338. Seth F. Kreimer, The Law of Choice and Choice of Law: Abortion, the Right to Travel, and Extraterritorial Regulation in American Federalism, 67 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 451, 519 (1992).
339. see also F.H. Buckley & Larry E. Ribstein, Calling a Truce in the Marriage Wars, 2001 U. Ill. L. Rev. 561, 568 (2001) (observing that "courts frequently uphold marriages that are valid where made but barred by the internal domicile law").
340. See Kim Forde-Mazrui, Tradition as Justification: The Case of Opposite-Sex Marriage, 78 U. Chi. L. Rev. 281, 341 (2011) (arguing that courts should "be skeptical of a law justified by tradition, and should not uphold it absent a convincing showing of alternative, legitimate purposes").
341. see also F.H. Buckley & Larry E. Ribstein, Calling a Truce in the Marriage Wars, 2001 U. Ill. L. Rev. 561, 568 (2001) (observing that "courts frequently uphold marriages that are valid where made but barred by the internal domicile law").
342. see also F.H. Buckley & Larry E. Ribstein, Calling a Truce in the Marriage Wars, 2001 U. Ill. L. Rev. 561, 568 (2001) (observing that "courts frequently uphold marriages that are valid where made but barred by the internal domicile law").
343. 517 U.S. 620 (1996).
344. Romer, 517 U.S. at 631-32.
345. Tobias Barrington Wolff, Interest Analysis in Interjurisdictional Marriage Disputes, 153 U. Pa. L. Rev. 2215, 2244 (2005).
346. Tobias Barrington Wolff, Interest Analysis in Interjurisdictional Marriage Disputes, 153 U. Pa. L. Rev. 2215, 2244 (2005).
347. C.W. Taintor, II, What Law Governs the Ceremony, Incidents and Status of Marriage, 19 B.U. L. Rev. 353, 357 (1939).
348. C.W. Taintor, II, What Law Governs the Ceremony, Incidents and Status of Marriage, 19 B.U. L. Rev. 353, 357 (1939).
349. C.W. Taintor, II, What Law Governs the Ceremony, Incidents and Status of Marriage, 19 B.U. L. Rev. 353, 357 (1939).
350. David L. Chambers, What If? The Legal Consequences of Marriage and the Legal Needs of Lesbian and Gay Male Couples, 95 Mich. L. Rev. 447, 453 (1996).
351. David L. Chambers, What If? The Legal Consequences of Marriage and the Legal Needs of Lesbian and Gay Male Couples, 95 Mich. L. Rev. 447, 453 (1996).
352. David L. Chambers, What If? The Legal Consequences of Marriage and the Legal Needs of Lesbian and Gay Male Couples, 95 Mich. L. Rev. 447, 453 (1996).
353. Goodridge v. Dep't of Pub. Health, 798 N.E.2d 941, 956 (Mass. 2003).
354. David L. Chambers, What If? The Legal Consequences of Marriage and the Legal Needs of Lesbian and Gay Male Couples, 95 Mich. L. Rev. 447, 453 (1996).
355. David L. Chambers, What If? The Legal Consequences of Marriage and the Legal Needs of Lesbian and Gay Male Couples, 95 Mich. L. Rev. 447, 453 (1996).
356. David L. Chambers, What If? The Legal Consequences of Marriage and the Legal Needs of Lesbian and Gay Male Couples, 95 Mich. L. Rev. 447, 453 (1996).
357. David L. Chambers, What If? The Legal Consequences of Marriage and the Legal Needs of Lesbian and Gay Male Couples, 95 Mich. L. Rev. 447, 453 (1996).
358. David L. Chambers, What If? The Legal Consequences of Marriage and the Legal Needs of Lesbian and Gay Male Couples, 95 Mich. L. Rev. 447, 453 (1996).
359. Baker v. State, 744 A.2d 864, 884 (Vt. 1999).
360. E.g., Goodridge v. Dep't of Pub. Health, 798 N.E.2d 941, 964 (Mass. 2003).
361. See, e.g., Angeliki Kastanis, M.V. Lee Badgett, & Jody L. Herman, The Williams Inst., The Economic Impact of Extending Marriage to Same-Sex Couples in Washington State (Jan. 2012), available at http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/economic-impactreports/ estimating-the-economic-boost-of-marriage-equality-in-washington-state-sales-tax-2 (estimating that "spending on wedding arrangements and tourism by resident same-sex couples and their guests" would add $88 million to the state and local economies of Washington over the first three years, including $8 million in tax revenues).
362. Baker, 744 A.2d at 884.
363. Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 632 (1996).
364. 138 P.3d 963, 982-83 (Wash. 2006).
365. Anderson, 138 P.3d at 983.
366. Hernandez v. Robles, 855 N.E.2d 1, 7 (N.Y. 2006).
367. Jean C. Love, The Synergistic Evolution of Liberty and Equality in the Marriage Cases Brought by Same-Sex Couples in State Courts, 13 J. Gender Race & Just. 275, 318 (2010) (discussing Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d (Iowa 2009).
368. Vivian Hamilton, Mistaking Marriage for Social Policy, 11 Va. J. Soc. Pol'y & L. 307, 323 (2004).
369. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).
370. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
371. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 96 (1987).
372. Martinez v. Cnty. of Monroe, 850 N.Y.S.2d 740, 742 (App. Div. 2008) (citations omitted).
373. See Marriage Equality & Other Relationship Recognition Laws, Hum. Rts. Campaign (July 6, 2011), http://www.hrc.org/documents/Relationship_Recognition_Laws_ Map.pdf.
374. The states are Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont. Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships, Nat'l Conf. of State Legislatures, http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/human-services/same-sex-marriage-overview.aspx (last updated Feb. 13, 2012) [hereinafter Nat'l Conf. of State Legislatures]. As this Article was going to press, legislation had been approved in Maryland and the State of Washington to allow same-sex marriages, but the laws had not yet taken effect and opponents were preparing to attempt to repeal the laws by ballot initiative.
375. Seth F. Kreimer, Territoriality and Moral Dissensus: Thoughts on Abortion, Slavery, Gay Marriage and Family Values, 16 Quinnipiac L. Rev. 161, 163 (1996).
376. Barry Friedman, Valuing Federalism, 82 Minn. L. Rev. 317, 364-65 (1997).
377. Herbert Wechsler, The Political Safeguards of Federalism: The Role of the States in the Composition and Selection of the National Government, 54 Colum. L. Rev. 543, 543 (1954).
378. We should also remember that "[t]he courts of each state are active participants in the formulation and implementation of local policies. To place in their hands extensive responsibility for deciding when those policies will yield to and when they will prevail over the competing policies of sister states seems unsound. " William F. Baxter, Choice of Law and the Federal System, 16 Stan. L. Rev. 1, 23 (1963).
379. We should also remember that "[t]he courts of each state are active participants in the formulation and implementation of local policies. To place in their hands extensive responsibility for deciding when those policies will yield to and when they will prevail over the competing policies of sister states seems unsound. " William F. Baxter, Choice of Law and the Federal System, 16 Stan. L. Rev. 1, 23 (1963).
380. Bob Barr, Opinion, No Defending the Defense of Marriage Act, L.A. Times, Jan. 5, 2009, available at http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-barr5-2009 jan05,0,1855836.story.
381. Nancy J. Knauer, Same-Sex Marriage and Federalism, 17 Temp. Pol. & Civ. Rts. L. Rev. 421, 439 (2008) (footnote omitted).
382. Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines 153 (2006).
383. Melissa Rothstein, The Defense of Marriage Act and Federalism: A States' Rights Argument in Defense of Same-Sex Marriages, 31 Fam. L.Q. 571, 582 (1997) (quoting 142 Cong. Rec. S5931, S5932 (daily ed. June 6, 1996) (letter from Lawrence Tribe to Senator Kennedy).
384. E.g., Larry Kramer, Same-Sex Marriage, Conflict of Laws, and the Unconstitutional Public Policy Exception, 106 Yale L.J. 1965, 1972 (1997) ("After all, it makes absolutely no difference from the perspective of either the parties or other states whether the decision that some law is too offensive to apply comes from a state's courts or from its legislature. ").
385. See Naomi Cahn & June Carbone, Red Families v. Blue Families (2010).
386. See Naomi Cahn & June Carbone, Red Families v. Blue Families (2010).
387. See Naomi Cahn & June Carbone, Red Families v. Blue Families (2010).
388. See Naomi Cahn & June Carbone, Red Families v. Blue Families (2010).
389. See Naomi Cahn & June Carbone, Red Families v. Blue Families (2010).
390. See Naomi Cahn & June Carbone, Red Families v. Blue Families (2010).
391. See Naomi Cahn & June Carbone, Red Families v. Blue Families (2010).
392. Allan Erbsen, Horizontal Federalism, 93 Minn. L. Rev. 493, 507 (2008).
393. Allan Erbsen, Horizontal Federalism, 93 Minn. L. Rev. 493, 507 (2008).
394. Allan Erbsen, Horizontal Federalism, 93 Minn. L. Rev. 493, 507 (2008).
395. Allan Erbsen, Horizontal Federalism, 93 Minn. L. Rev. 493, 507 (2008).