Glucksberg, lawrence, and the decline of loving's marriage precedent

Virginia Law Review

Volumn 98, Issue 8, 2012, Pages 1825-1860

  Egger, Jeremiah ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA SCHOOL OF LAW   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84875752612     PISSN: 00426601     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (95)

1. 388 U.S. 1, 2 (1967).
2. 539 U.S. 558 (2003).
3. 405 U.S. 438, 453 (1972).
4. 478 U.S. 186, 192 (1986).
5. 521 U.S. 702, 722 (1997).
6. 482 U.S. 78, 95-96 (1987).
7. Brief for Proponents at 66, Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2012) (No. 10-16696), 2010 WL 3762119 at 66.
8. Loving, 388 U.S. at 7.
9. See Joseph A. Pull, Questioning the Fundamental Right to Marry, 90 Marq. L. Rev. 21, 63 (2006) ("In a state with a representative government, the boundaries of legal-marriage will be driven by social understandings of what marriage should mean-that is to say, by popular-marriage. The state will try to make its legal-marriage the same as the prevailing popular-marriage.").
10. Ernest W. Burgess & Harvey J. Locke, The Family: From Institution to Companionship 22-25 (1953).
11. Andrew J. Cherlin, The Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage, 66 J. Marriage & Fam. 848, 851 (2004).
12. Susan Gregory Thomas, Gray Divorcés, Wall St. J., Mar. 3, 2012, at C1.
13. John R. Gillis, For Better, For Worse: British Marriages, 1600 to the Present 229 (1985). Although Professor Gillis labels the time period as 1850 to 1960, his research does not indi-cate that the changes in the public viewpoint of marriage occurred as early as 1960, but ra-ther sometime between 1960 and the mid-1970s.
14. As late as 2005, Virginia had a fornication ban in effect.
15. See Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-344 (2009) (ruled unconstitutional by Martin v. Ziherl, 607 S.E.2d 367, 371 (Va. 2005)).
16. Morris Ploscowe, Sex and the Law 149 (1951).
17. Jim Thompson, The Role of Common Law Concepts in Modern Criminal Jurisprudence (A Symposium), 49 J. Crim. L., Criminology & Police Sci. 350, 353 n.32 (1958).
18. Anne M. Coughlin, Sex and Guilt, 84 Va. L. Rev. 1, 6 & n.19 (1998).
19. 34 S.E. 477, 478 (Va. 1899).
20. 99 S.E. 695, 698-99 (Va. 1919).
21. Walter O. Weyrauch, Informal and Formal Marriage-An Appraisal of Trends in Fami-ly Organization, 28 U. Chi. L. Rev. 88, 89-90 (1960).
22. John De Witt Gregory et al., Understanding Family Law 39-40 (2005).
23. See, e.g., John R. Williams, Solemnization of Marriages: The Common Law Marriage-Never Solemn and No Longer Common-Will It Remain Law?, 13 U. Miami L. Rev. 447, 449-50 (1959)
24. See Nancy Rebecca Shaw, Note, Common Law Marriage and Unmarried Cohabitation: An Old Solution to a New Problem, 39 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 579, 580 (1978) ("The recognition of common law marriages was a historical necessity, since the desire to start a family would otherwise have been thwarted in scattered and isolated agricultural and mountain communities with difficult access to ministers or justices of the peace.").
25. Allen v. State, 3 S.E.2d 780, 782 (Ga. Ct. App. 1939) (internal citation omitted).
26. Brief for Appellee at 8, Loving, 388 U.S. 1 (No. 395).
27. Loving, 388 U.S. at 4 (quoting Va. Code Ann. § 20-58 (1960 Repl. Vol.) (repealed 1968) (emphasis added)). According to the Court, Va. Code Ann. § 20-59 (1960 Repl. Vol.) (repealed 1968), was the broader antimiscegenation statute, which prohibited any "white person" and "colored person" from intermarrying.
28. Loving v. Commonwealth, 147 S.E.2d 78, 83 (Va. 1966).
29. 71 Va. (1 Gratt.) 858 (1878)
30. Walter Wadlington, The Loving Case: Virginia's Anti-Miscegenation Statute in Historical Perspective, 52 Va. L. Rev. 1189, 1199 (1966) ("Apparently because the practice of marrying in another state in order to avoid the Virginia pro-scription against interracial marriage had become prevalent by 1878, a special evasion provision was added in that year to the criminal section of the miscegenation laws.").
31. Kinney, 71 Va. (1 Gratt.) at 859.
32. Va. Code Ann. § 4540 (1942) (annotation) ("The parties who violate the provisions of the act prohibiting the intermarriage of a white with a colored person are liable to indictment for lewd and lascivious cohabitation.").
33. 125 U.S. 190, 205 (1888).
34. Maguire v. Maguire, 37 Ky. (7 Dana) 181, 184 (1838) (describing marriage as "the most elementary and useful" of all social relations).
35. Ditson v. Ditson, 4 R.I. 87, 101 (1856) ("Now, marriage, in the sense in which it is dealt with by a decree of divorce, is not a contract, but one of the domestic relations. In strictness though formed by contract, it signifies the relation of husband and wife, deriving both its rights and duties from a source higher than any contract of which the parties are capable, and as to these, uncontrollable by any contract which they can make. When formed, this relation is no more a contract than 'fatherhood' or 'sonship' is a contract.").
36. Wade v. Kalbfleisch, 58 N.Y. 282, 284 (1874) ("It cannot be dissolved by the parties when consummated . . . . It is more than a contract. It requires certain acts of the parties to constitute marriage, independent of and beyond the contract.").
37. Adams v. Palmer, 51 Me. 480, 483 (1863).
38. Lucretius, De Rerum Natura [On the Nature of Things] 5.1011-14 (translated in Natania Meeker, Engendering Modernity: Epicurean Women from Lucretius to Rousseau, in Dynam-ic Reading: Studies in the Reception of Epicureanism 133, 148 n.25 (Brooke Holmes & W. H. Shearin eds., 2012)).
39. U.S. Const. amend. XVI.
40. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923).
41. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942).
42. Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d 17, 18-19, 29 (Cal. 1948).
43. 106 U.S. 583 (1883).
44. Perez, 198 P.2d at 26.
45. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 502 (1965) (White, J., concurring).
46. Griswold, 381 U.S. at 493-94.
47. Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 508-09 (1961).
48. Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978).
49. Zablocki, 434 U.S. at 386.
50. Califano v. Jobst, 434 U.S. 47, 48 (1977). The decision in Califano has even been described as allowing the government to "penalize someone for marrying."
51. Andrew Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage 11-13 (1992)
52. see also Larry L. Bumpass et al., The Role of Cohabitation in Declining Rates of Marriage, 53 J. Marriage & Fam. 913, 913 (1991).
53. Gerhard O.W. Mueller, Sexual Conduct and the Law 36 (1980).
54. Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453 (1972) (emphasis added).
55. 482 U.S. 78 (1987).
56. Turner, 482 U.S. at 95-96.
57. 539 U.S. 558, 578 (2003).
58. 478 U.S. 186 (1986).
59. Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 573 ("The 25 States with laws prohibiting the relevant conduct referenced in the Bowers decision are reduced now to 13, of which 4 enforce their laws only against homosexual conduct.").
60. see also Dahlia Lithwick, Extreme Makeover: The Sto-ry Behind the Story of Lawrence v. Texas, New Yorker, Mar. 12, 2012, at 76, 78.
61. Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 567.
62. See, e.g., William N. Eskridge, Jr. & Nan D. Hunter, Sexuality, Gender, and the Law 98 (Robert C. Clark et al. eds., 2d ed. 2004) (noting that at the time of Lawrence, there were seven states that prohibited fornication and seven others in which cohabitation was illegal)
63. Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-344 (2009) ("Any person, not being married, who voluntarily shall have sexual intercourse with any other person, shall be guilty of fornication, punishable as a Class 4 misdemeanor.").
64. 607 S.E.2d 367 (Va. 2005).
65. See, e.g., Reliable Consultants v. Earle, 517 F.3d 738 (5th Cir. 2008).
66. Cass R. Sunstein, The Right to Marry, 26 Cardozo L. Rev. 2081, 2087-88 (2005).
67. Stephanie Coontz, Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy or How Love Conquered Marriage 11 (2005).
68. 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010).
69. Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 543 (1961) (Harlan, J., dissenting).
70. Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 562 ("Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes free-dom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct.").
71. Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, 192 (1986) (citation omitted).
72. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 723 (1997).
73. Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 566-67 (citation omitted).
74. Brian Hawkins, Note, The Glucksberg Renaissance: Substantive Due Process Since Lawrence v. Texas, 105 Mich. L. Rev. 409, 410-11, 411 n.7 (2006) ("Indeed, Lawrence so strongly denounced narrow interpretations of the Due Process Clauses that one might reasonably wonder whether Lawrence intended implicitly to repudiate Glucksberg through its explicit rejection of Bowers. Many commentators have reached essentially this conclusion, predicting that Lawrence would usher in a new era of expanded constitutional freedoms.").
75. 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3023 (2010)
76. McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3053 (Scalia, J., concurring) (internal quotation marks omit-ted).
77. Dale Carpenter, The New York Marriage Decision, Due Process, and Defining Fundamental Rights, Volokh Conspiracy, July 6, 2006, 8:41 PM, http://www.volokh.com/2006/07/06/the-new-york-marriage-decision-due-process-and- defining-fundamental-rights/.
78. Brief for Respondents, Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (No. 96-110), 1996 WL 708925.
79. 497 U.S. 261 (1990).
80. 505 U.S. 833 (1992).
81. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 725 (citations omitted).
82. 71 Va. (1 Gratt.) 858, 870 (1878).
83. Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 567.
84. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 96 (1987). Other scholars have reinforced the idea of marriage as a positive right. Some contrast it with other fundamental rights by asserting that it "fits with the list [of other unenumerated fundamental rights] in that it involves family life and intimate life, but it also does not fit because it is a positive liberty."
85. Turner, 482 U.S. at 95-96.
86. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 720-21.
87. See, e.g., Earl M. Maltz, Constitutional Protection for the Right to Marry: A Dissenting View, 60 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 949, 956-58, 967 (1992) (enumerating the aspects of marriage other than the sexual relationship between marital partners as "emotional support and public commitment," "economic benefits derived from the marital relationship," and "the relation-ship between the husband, wife, and offspring of the marriage," and finding the designation of any of them as fundamental rights to be unsupported).
88. Jesse McKinley, Both Sides in California's Gay Marriage Fight See a Long Court Bat-tle Ahead, N.Y. Times, June 27, 2010, at A12.
89. 671 F.3d 1052, 1063 (9th Cir. 2012).
90. Brief for Appellees at i, Perry, 671 F.3d 1052 (No. 10-16696), 2010 WL 4310749 at i
91. see also Final Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellees at 17, 24, Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 2009) (No. 07-1499), 2008 WL 5156764 at 17, 24.
92. Brief for Appellees at 41, Perry, 671 F.3d 1052 (No. 10-16696), 2010 WL 4310749 at 41.
93. Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921, 993 (N.D. Cal. 2010).
94. Sherif Girgis et al., What is Marriage? 34 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 245, 284 (2011)
95. Brief for Appellees at 40, Perry, 671 F.3d 1052 (No. 10-16696), 2010 WL 4310749 at 40.