| Abstrakt: |
The advent of marriage equality has led some commentators and judges to complain that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights supporters frequently claim that same-sex marriage opponents are bigots. This Essay explains that while it is true that some LGBT rights supporters have sometimes improperly suggested that many marriage equality opponents are bigots, some commentators and judges (including Chief Justice Roberts in his dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges1 and Justice Alito in his dissent in United States v. Windsor)2 have incorrectly contended that to claim that the exclusion of same-sex couples from the institution of marriage discriminates against--or demeans, humiliates, or stigmatizes--sexual minorities is to claim that those who support a traditional understanding of marriage are bigoted. The Essay also explains that despite Chief Justice Roberts's contention to the contrary, the majority in Obergefell did not focus on the intent or motivations behind the same-sex marriage bans. Instead, the Court emphasized the harmful, demeaning, and stigmatizing consequences of those bans for sexual minorities. Finally, the Essay argues that Chief Justice Roberts in Obergefell and Justice Alito in Windsor provide, at best, an unduly circumscribed, and, at worst, a revisionist and sanitized version of the same-sex marriage debates that took place in the United States during the last two decades. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
