¹ Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 2619 (2015). (Roberts, J., dissenting) (“[T]he compelling personal accounts of petitioners and others like them are likely a primary reason why many Americans have changed their minds about whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.”).Google Scholar

² Snyder, DeBoer v., 772 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 2014).Google Scholar

³ Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 455 F.3d 859, 871 (8th Cir. 2006).Google Scholar

⁴ Perry, Hollingsworth v., 133 S. Ct. 2652, 2668 (2013).Google Scholar

⁵ 478 U.S. 186, 196 (1986).Google Scholar

⁶ See, e.g., Talbot, Margaret, A Risky Proposal: Is it too Soon to Petition the Supreme Court on Gay Marriage?, New Yorker (Jan. 28, 2010), http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/01/18/a-risky-proposal. In 2012, North Carolina voted for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, while voters rejected such a constitutional amendment in Minnesota and approved same-sex marriage by ballot in Maine, Maryland, and Washington.Google Scholar

⁷ 517 U.S. 620 (1996).Google Scholar

⁸ 539 U.S. 558 (2003).Google Scholar

⁹ 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013).Google Scholar

¹⁰ See Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2709 (Scalia, J., dissenting).Google Scholar

¹¹ See Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 604–05 (Scalia J., dissenting) (citing Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 567).Google Scholar

¹² Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2705, 2709 (Scalia, J., dissenting).Google Scholar

¹³ See Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2607–08.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Id. at 2599.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Id. at 2659.Google Scholar

¹⁶ See, e.g., Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 485–86 (1965); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 152, 152–53 (1973); Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992).Google Scholar

¹⁷ Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2594.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Id. at 2600.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Griswold, 381 U.S. at 486 (discussing contraception in marriage (citing Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2599–60)).Google Scholar

²⁰ Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2600 (citing Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2689).Google Scholar

²¹ Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2600.Google Scholar

²² Id. Google Scholar

²³ Id. at 2601.Google Scholar

²⁴ Hill, Maynard v., 125 U.S. 190, 211 (1888).Google Scholar

²⁵ Id. at 213 (quoting Noel v. Ewing, 9 Ind. 37 (1857)).Google Scholar

²⁶ Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2601 (citing 1 Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America 309 (H. Reeve trans., rev. ed. 1990 (1835)).Google Scholar

²⁷ See, e.g., the analysis in Catharine MacKinnon, Disputing Male Sovereignty: On United States v. Morrison, 114 Harv. L. Rev. 135 (2000).Google Scholar

²⁸ See the caveat in Planned Parenthood v Casey, 505 U.S. at 892–93 (1992): “In well-functioning marriages, spouses discuss important intimate decisions such as whether to bear a child. But there are millions of women in this country who are the victims of regular physical and psychological abuse at the hands of their husbands.” (O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter, JJ.).Google Scholar

²⁹ See, e.g., Goldfarb, Phyllis, Describing Without Circumscribing: Questioning the Construction of Gender in the Discourse of Intimate Violence, 64 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 582 (1996).Google Scholar

³⁰ Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2600.Google Scholar

³¹ Id. at 2602.Google Scholar

³² Id. at 2600.Google Scholar

³³ Id. at 2608.Google Scholar

³⁴ Id. at 2601.Google Scholar

³⁵ See Waldron, Jeremy, Dignity, Rank, and Rights (The 2009 Tanner Lectures at UC Berkeley, NYU Sch. of Law Pub. Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series, Working Paper No. 09-50, 2009); see also Jeremy Waldron, Dignity, Rights, and Responsibilities, 43 Ariz. St. L.J. 1107 (2012).Google Scholar

³⁶ Franke, Katherine M., Dignifying Rights: A Comment on Jeremy Waldron's Dignity, Rights, and Responsibilities, 43 Ariz. St. L.J. 1177, 1183, 1189–90 (2012).Google Scholar

³⁷ Lawrence, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).Google Scholar

³⁸ Bowers, 478 U.S. at 191.Google Scholar

³⁹ Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 567 (“When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.”).Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Id. Google Scholar

⁴¹ Bowers, 478 U.S. at 191.Google Scholar

⁴² Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 574 (quoting Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.”).Google Scholar

⁴³ See Carpenter, Dale, Flagrant Conduct: The Story of Lawrence v. Texas, 61–74 (2012) (showing that it is highly improbable that the defendants were caught having sex). For strategic reasons, they did not dispute the charges, but focused on constitutional grounds. See id. at 113–20.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Justice O'Connor's concurring opinion instead emphasizes equality, highlighting the stigma conveyed by criminalizing a sexual practice commonly associated with homosexuals. Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 581–83.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2604.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ A closer look at the jurisprudence leading up to Lawrence reveals “a narrative in which due process and equal protection, far from having separate missions and entailing different inquiries, are profoundly interlocked in a legal double helix.” Laurence H. Tribe, Lawrence v. Texas: The “Fundamental Right” that Dare Not Speak its Name, 117 Harv. L. Rev. 1893, 1989 (2004).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Loving, 388 U.S. at 12.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 575.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Baer, Susanne, Dignity, Liberty, Equality: A Fundamental Rights Triangle of Constitutionalism, 59 U. of Toronto L.J. 417 (2009).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ For a similar critique of dignity in the area of sexual harassment law, see Susanne Baer, Würde oder Gleichheit? Zur angemessenen grundrechtlichen Konzeption von Recht gegen Diskriminierung am Beispiel sexueller Belästigung am Arbeitsplatz in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und den USA 214–20 (1995).Google Scholar

⁵¹ The Establishment Clause, which prevents Congress from endorsing a religion, also applies to the states by way of incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause; See Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 15 (1947).Google Scholar

⁵² Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2619 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting).Google Scholar

⁵³ Id. at 2613 (citing James Q. Wilson, The Marriage Problem: How our Culture has Weakened Families 41 (2002)).Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Id. at 2641 (Alito J., dissenting); Transcript of Oral Argument at 64, Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015) (No. 14-556) [hereinafter Obergefell, Transcript of Oral Argument].Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Obergefell, Transcript of Oral Argument, supra note 54.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Id. at 43.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Couples who are able to have children together without assistance can also legally be of the same sex, as if, for example, a trans* partner's procreative abilities were not affected by surgical intervention or hormonal therapy.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Obergefell, Transcript of Oral Argument, supra note 54, at 42–43 (Breyer, J.).Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2613 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting).Google Scholar

⁶⁰ See also id. at 2601.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Obergefell, Transcript of Oral Argument, supra note 54, at 54–55 (Kagan and Kennedy, JJ.).Google Scholar

⁶² Id. at 55.Google Scholar

⁶³ Id. Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Brief for Am. Psychological Assoc. et al. as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioners, Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015) (No. 14-556) [hereinafter APA Brief].Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Id. at 16.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Rosenfeld, Michael J., Nontraditional Families & Childhood Progress Through School, 47 Demography 755 (2010) (finding no statistically relevant difference in grade retention between children of married heterosexual couples and children of unmarried same-sex couples of equal socio-economic status).Google Scholar

⁶⁷ See Brief, APA, supra note 64, at 17–18 (citing Kristin Anderson Moore, Suzanne Jekielek, & Carol Emig, Marriage from a Child's Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children, and What Can We Do About It? 2 (2002), http://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/MarriageRB602.pdf) (examining marriage versus cohabitation)); Wendy D. Manning & Kathleen A. Lamb, Adolescent Well-Being in Cohabiting, Married, and Single-Parent Families, 65 J. Marriage & Fam. 876 (Nov. 2003) (showing that marriage enhances socioeconomic resources for families); Pamela J. Smock & Wendy D. Manning, Living Together Unmarried in the United States: Demographic Perspectives and Implications for Family Policy, 26 L. & Pol'y 87, 94 (2004) (examining the role of marriage in family stability).Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Obergefell, Transcript of Oral Argument, supra note 54, at 47.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Id. at 66.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Id. at 64–65 (Sotomayor, J.). The contrary claim in Brief for 100 Scholars of Marriage as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondents at 18, 20, Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (No. 14-556), appears to be a rather tendentious reading of Mircea Trendafir, The Effect of Same-Sex Marriage Laws on Different-Sex Marriage: Evidence From the Netherlands, 51 Demography 317 (2014), and of Alexis Dinno & Chelsea White, Same Sex Marriage and the Perceived Assault on Opposite Sex Marriage (2013), 8 PLOS ONE 6 (June 11, 2013), http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065730. See also Brief of Massachusetts et al., 22–23.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Obergefell, Transcript of Oral Argument, supra note 54, at 65.Google Scholar

⁷² Fundamental rights trigger heightened scrutiny, requiring not just a rational relation to a legitimate state interest, but narrow tailoring to a compelling state interest. Carolene Products v. U.S., 304 U.S. 144, 153 n.4 (1938).Google Scholar

⁷³ See, e.g., Brown, Perry v., 671 F3d 1052, 1091 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Proposition 8 is ‘so far removed from these particular justifications that we find it impossible to credit them.‘ Romer, 517 U.S. at 635.”); Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652, 2668 (2013) (overturned for lack of standing).Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Goldberg, Suzanne, Intuition and Feminist Constitutionalism, in Feminist Constitutionalism: Global Perspectives 98, 99–100 (Beverly Baines, Daphne Barak-Erez, & Tsvi Kahana eds., 2012) (warning against intuition's susceptibility to bias and stereotypes). On implicit bias, see Christine Jolls & Cass R. Sunstein, The Law of Implicit Bias, 94 Cal. L. Rev. 969 (2006).Google Scholar

⁷⁵ See FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 315 (1993); Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93, 110–11 (1979).Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Vance, 440 U.S. at 111.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2607.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ On animus as “bite,” see Kenji Yoshino, The New Equal Protection, 24 Harv. L. Rev. 747, 759–60 (2011).Google Scholar

⁷⁹ See Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, 2010-IV Eur. Ct. H.R, 409 (June 24, 2010).Google Scholar

⁸⁰ See Obergefell, Transcript of Oral Argument, supra note 54, at 5.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Loving, 388 U.S. at 12.Google Scholar

⁸² Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2620 (Roberts C.J., dissenting); id. at 2635–37 (Thomas J., dissenting).Google Scholar

⁸³ Id. at 2594 (majority opinion).Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Id. at 2612 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting).Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Id. at 2628 (Scalia, J., dissenting).Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Id. at 2541 (Alito J., dissenting).Google Scholar

⁸⁷ See Obergefell, Transcript of Oral Argument, supra note 54, at 14-15; see also Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2715 (Alito J., dissenting).Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Baehr v Lewin, 852 P. 2d 44, 64, 67 (Haw. 1993) (denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples is sex discrimination).Google Scholar

⁸⁹ For Article 12 ECHR see infra note 149.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ See Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfGE] [Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 1 BvR 636/68, paras. 31, 58, 69 (May 04, 1971), http://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=BverfGE%2031,%2058.Google Scholar

⁹¹ See Badura, Peter, Artikel 6 GG, in Grundgesetz-Kommentar (Theodor Maunz & Günter Dürig eds., 75th update, 2015), at MN 69–72; see also Donald Kommers & Russell Miller, The Constitutional Jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany 610 (3d ed. 2012).Google Scholar

⁹² Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court] July 17, 2002, 105 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts [BVerfGE] 313 (345)—Lebenspartnerschaftsgesetz [Civil Partnership Act]; May 7, 2013, 133 BVerfGE 377 (409)—Ehegattensplitting [Spousal Tax Splitting].Google Scholar

⁹³ Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2595.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Brief for Historians of Marriage and The American Historical Association as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioners, Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015) (No. 14-556) [hereinafter Brief for Historians of Marriage].Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Id. at 7.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Id. at 7–10, with further references.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Id. at 12–13.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Id. at 14.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Id. at 18.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ See Richardson, Frontiero v., 411 U.S. 677 (1973); Weinberger v Wiesenfeld, 420 U.S. 636 (1975); Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U.S. 199 (1977).Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ See Brief for Historians of Marriage, supra note 94, at 20–21, with further references; Loving, 388 U.S. at 12.Google Scholar

¹⁰² For an overview, see Kay, Herma Hill, Equality and Difference: A Perspective on No-Fault Divorce and Its Aftermath, 56 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1, 1 (1987).Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2595.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ See Markard, Nora, Eheschließungsfreiheit im Kampf der Kulturen, in Regulierungen des Intimen 139, 140 (Ulrike Lembke ed., 2016).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court] Mar. 20, 1963, 15 BVerfGE 328 (332)— Hypothekengewinnabgabe [Levy on Mortgage Profits]; May 04, 1971, 31 BVerfGE 58 (82–83)—Spanierbeschluss [Spaniard Decision]; Feb. 28, 1980, 53 BVerfGE 224 (225)—Ehescheidung [Divorce].Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Bundesgerichtshof [BGH] [Federal Court of Justice] Nov. 02, 1966, 20 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift [NJW] 1078.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Until 1997, Strafgesetzbuch [StGB] [Penal Code] § 177(1) provided: “He who coerces a woman into extramarital intercourse with himself or a third person by use of force or by threatening her with a present danger for life or person will be punished with a prison sentence not below two years.” (emphasis added).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Heiderhoff, See Bettina, Eheliche (Rechts-)Pflichten: Ein verborgener Diskurs, in Regulierungen des Intimen (Ulrike Lembke ed., 2016). Still, some authors assume that sexual duties continue to exist as part of the “mutual duty of conjugal community” (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch [BGB] [Civil Code] § 1353(1)), the enforcement of which § 120(3) FamFG explicitly excludes; see id. Conspicuously, section 2 of the Life Partnership Act (Lebenspartnerschaftsgesetz, LPartG) does not contain a similar clause and is not mentioned in section 120(3) FamFG. Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch [BGB] [Civil Code] § 1353(1).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch [BGB] [Civil Code] § 1565, reformed in 1977. Yet, marriage is not open to couples that are closely related (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch [BGB] [Civil Code] § 1307); see, infra note 216.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court] July 07, 2009, 124 BVerfGE 199, paras. 112– 13—Hinterbliebenenversorgung [Provision for Dependants].Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfGE] [Federal Constitutional Court] June 19, 2012, 131 BVerfGE 239, para. 66— Familienzuschlag [Family Allowance]; 133 BVerfGE 377, at para. 83.Google Scholar

¹¹² 133 BVerfGE 377, at para. 97. The Court went on to consider that, if such a benefit is designed to make it easier for one spouse to stay at home to care for children, it cannot be denied to same-sex partners in the same situation, even if they have children less often than married couples; id. paras. 99–102.Google Scholar

¹¹³ Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court] May 12, 1987, 76 BVerfGE 1 (43)— Familiennachzug [Family Reunification].Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court] Feb. 28, 2007, 117 BVerfGE 316 (327) – künstliche Befruchtung [Artificial Insemination].Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court] Mar. 25, 2011, 30 Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht [NVwZ] 870, para. 20.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ Röthel, Anne, Regelungsaufgabe Paarbeziehung und die Instrumente des Rechts, in Regelungsaufgabe Paarbeziehung: Was kann, was darf, was will der Staat? 17, 22, 26–29 (Anne Röthel & Bettina Heiderhoff eds., 2012); Susanne Baer, Regelungsaufgabe Paarbeziehung: Was darf der Staat?, in Regelungsaufgabe Paarbeziehung: Was kann, was darf, was will der Staat? 35, 37 (Anne Röthel & Bettina Heiderhoff eds., 2012); Nina Dethloff, Familienrecht: Ein Studienbuch 2–3 (30th ed. 2012).Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2715 (Alito J., dissenting).Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2596.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ Bowers, 478 U.S. at 191.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 567 (“When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.”).Google Scholar

¹²¹ Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2602.Google Scholar

¹²² Id. at 2613 (Roberts, CJ., dissenting).Google Scholar

¹²³ Id. at 2614.Google Scholar

¹²⁴ Id. Google Scholar

¹²⁵ Id. at 2619.Google Scholar

¹²⁶ Id. Google Scholar

¹²⁷ Id. Google Scholar

¹²⁸ Id. Google Scholar

¹²⁹ Id. at 2614.Google Scholar

¹³⁰ Mangold, Anna Katharina, Ehe für alle: Der Kampf um die Gleichberechtigung, 60 Blätter für deutsche und internationale Politik 10, 111 (2015).Google Scholar

¹³¹ Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2619.Google Scholar

¹³² Karr, Alphonse, Juillet 1849, 6 Les Guêpes 274, 278 (1859) (meaning: The more it changes, the more it remains the same).Google Scholar

¹³³ Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2602.Google Scholar

¹³⁴ Id. Google Scholar

¹³⁵ Id. Google Scholar

¹³⁶ Glucksberg, Washington v., 521 U.S. 702, 721 (1997) (quoting Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325–26 (1937)).Google Scholar

¹³⁷ Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 579.Google Scholar

¹³⁸ See supra note 6; see also Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2615 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting).Google Scholar

¹³⁹ Minnesota Amendment 1 was rejected by 51.19% of the voters on November 6, 2012. See Ballot Measure: Minnesota (Minnesota Amendment 1), CNN, http://edition.cnn.com/election/2012/results/state/MN/ballot/01/ (last visited July 16, 2016).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2611 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting).Google Scholar

¹⁴¹ Obergefell, Transcript of Oral Argument, supra note 54, at 41.Google Scholar

¹⁴² See Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, Speaking in a Judicial Voice, 67 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1185, 1199–1205 (1992) (distinguishing Roe from Brown); see also Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Some Thoughts on Autonomy and Equality in Relation to Roe v. Wade, 63 N.C. L. Rev. 375, 385–86 (1985) (cited in Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2625 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting)).Google Scholar

¹⁴³ Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2612 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting); see also id. at 2643 (Alito, J., dissenting) (“[T]he Nation will experience bitter and lasting wounds.”).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁴ Id. at 2625 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁵ Obergefell, Transcript of Oral Argument, supra note 54, at 74.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁶ Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2606; see also Maximilian Steinbeis, Ehe für alle: Warum Mehrheitsentscheid auch bei Minderheitsrechten nichts Schlechtes sein muss, Verfassungsblog (May 27, 2015), http://www.verfassungsblog.de/ehe-fuer-alle-warum-mehrheitsentscheid-auch-bei-minderheitsrechten-nichts-schlechtes-sein-muss/.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁷ Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2606.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁸ For an in-depth comparative discussion, including examples from the United States, see Nora Markard, Private but Equal? Why the right to privacy will not bring full equality for same-sex couples, in Order from Transfer. Projects and Problems of Comparative Constitutional Studies 86, 102–115 (Günter Frankenberg ed., 2013).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁹ Article 12 ECHR: “Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.”Google Scholar

¹⁵⁰ Schalk and Kopf, 2010-IV Eur. Ct. H.R. at 409.Google Scholar

¹⁵¹ Verfassungsgerichtshof [VfGH] [Constitutional Court] Dec. 12, 2003, No. B777/03-5.Google Scholar

¹⁵² Schalk and Kopf, 2010-IV Eur. Ct. H.R. paras. 55, 58, 60. Unlike a state constitution, the Convention provides common standards for 47 state parties. The Court resolves this problem through a flexible application of its margin of appreciation: The stronger the consensus among the Convention states, the narrower a state's margin of appreciation.Google Scholar

¹⁵³ Id. at para. 101.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁴ See Markard, supra note 148, at 114–15.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁵ Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG-K] [Federal Constitutional Court] Apr. 10, 1993, 46 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift [NJW] 3058. This was a decision of non-acceptance, which came in reaction to the “Aktion Standesamt,” where lesbian and gay couples applied for marriage licenses and challenged the refusal in court.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁶ For Germany, see Gesetz über die Eingetragene Lebenspartnerschaft [LPartG] [Life Partnership Act], 2001, BGBl I at 266 (Ger.); For Austria, see Eingetragene Partnerschaft-Gesetz [EPG] [Registered Partnership Act], BGBl I at 135 (Austria).Google Scholar

¹⁵⁷ Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court] Dec. 06, 2005, 115 BVerfGE 1, para. 55 et seq.—Transsexualität V (2005). The case concerned a couple who, due to problematic restrictions on one partner's trans* status, was caught between marriage and life partnership. See Laura Adamietz, Transgender ante portas? Anmerkungen zur fünften Entscheidung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts zur Transsexualität, 44 Kritische Justiz 368 (2006).Google Scholar

¹⁵⁸ Schalk and Kopf, 2010-IV Eur. Ct. H.R. at para. 99; confirmed in Vallianatos v. Greece, App. Nos. 29381/09 and 32684/09, para. 78 (Nov. 7, 2013), http://hudoc.echt.coe.int/.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁹ Schalk and Kopf, 2010-IV Eur. Ct. H.R. at paras. 104–06 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

¹⁶⁰ Oliari and others v. Italy, App. Nos. 18766/11 and 36030/11 (July 21, 2015), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/.Google Scholar

¹⁶¹ X and others v. Austria, App. No. 19010/07 at para. 164 (Feb. 19, 2013), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/ (comparing discrimination in unmarried, opposite-sex couples).Google Scholar

¹⁶² Oliari, App. Nos. 18766/11 and 36030/11 at para. 177. See also the concurring opinion of some of the X dissenters in Vallianatos, App. Nos. 29381/09 and 32684/09 at para 78.Google Scholar

¹⁶³ Oliari, App. Nos. 18766/11 and 36030/11 at paras. 178–81.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁴ Id. at para. 185.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁵ Id. at para. 192.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁶ X and others, App. No. 19010/07 at para. 164. Exclusion of unmarried same-sex parents from step-parent adoption discriminatory in comparison to unmarried opposite-sex parents; Vallianatos, App. Nos. 29381/09 and 32684/09 at para. 92. Protecting children born out of wedlock and promoting marriage as a decision to be taken “purely on the basis of a mutual commitment entered into by two individuals, independently of outside constraints or of the prospect of having children,” cannot justify excluding same-sex couples from civil unions.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁷ Yoshino, supra note 78, at 787, 800.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁸ Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court] July 17, 2002, 105 BVerfGE 313, paras. 104-06. On sex equality, see Suzanne Goldberg, Risky Arguments in Social-Justice Litigation: The Case of Sex Discrimination and Marriage Equality, 114 Colum. L. Rev. 2087 (2014).Google Scholar

¹⁶⁹ 105 BVerfGE 313, at para. 109.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁰ Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG-K] [Federal Constitutional Court] Sep. 09, 2007, 61 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift [NJW] 209—Verheiratetenzuschlag I [Marriage Bonus I]; Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG-K] [Federal Constitutional Court] Aug. 11, 2007, 55 Zeitschrift für das gesamte Familienrecht [FamRZ] 487—Familienzuschlag [Family Allowance]; Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG-K] [Federal Constitutional Court] May 06, 2008, 61 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift [NJW] 2325—Verheiratetenzuschlag II [Marriage Bonus II].Google Scholar

¹⁷¹ 55 FamRZ 487.Google Scholar

¹⁷² Case C-267/06, Tadao Maruko v. Versorgungsanstalt der deutschen Bühnen, 2008 E.C.R. I⁻ 1757, para. 73 (regarding survivor's benefits).Google Scholar

¹⁷³ Maruko only applies within the scope of the Framework Directive 2000/78/EC.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁴ 61 NJW 2325.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁵ The First Senate examines statutes and judgments in light of fundamental rights; the Second Senate is mainly in charge of inter-organ disputes, federalism disputes, and the constitutionality of statutes in other respects, see Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz [BVerfGG] [Law of the Federal Constitutional Court], § 14.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁶ 124 BVerfGE 199.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁷ Id. at paras. 225–30.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁸ Grundgesetz [GG] [Basic Law], translation at http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/index.html. Article 3(1) GG contains a general equality clause. Art. 3(3) GG contains a specific prohibition of discrimination on the basis of “sex, parentage, race, language, homeland and origin, faith, or religious or political opinions [or] disability.”Google Scholar

¹⁷⁹ Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court] July 21, 2010, 126 BVerfGE 400.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁰ Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court] June 19, 2012, 131 BVerfGE 239.Google Scholar

¹⁸¹ Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court] July 18, 2012, 132 BVerfGE 179.Google Scholar

¹⁸² 133 BVerfGE 377.Google Scholar

¹⁸³ Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court] Feb. 19, 2013, 133 BVerfGE 59.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁴ See supra note 156.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁵ Schalk and Kopf, 2010-IV Eur. Ct. H.R. para. 106; references omitted.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁶ Verfassungsgerichtshof [VfGH] [Constitutional Court] Sep. 22, 2011, Case No. B518/11 (misinterpreting the EPG).Google Scholar

¹⁸⁷ Verfassungsgerichtshof [VfGH] [Constitutional Court] Mar. 3, 2012, Case No. G131/11 (stating “easier processing” not convincing).Google Scholar

¹⁸⁸ Verfassungsgerichtshof [VfGH] [Constitutional Court] Dec. 12, 2012, Case Nos. B125/11 and 138/11. Michael Spindelegger, then president of the National Assembly and later foreign minister, had advocated this separation: “And the fact is that at the registrar's office in the summer season people especially like to get married—that will automatically lead to a contact between heterosexual and homosexual couples. Whether that is such a good idea is anybody's guess.” Oliver Pink, Spindelegger: Josef Proll is eine geniale Figur, Die Presse (Apr. 29, 2008), http://diepresse.com/home/politik/innenpolitik/380504/Spindelegger_Josef-Proll-ist-eine-geniale-Figur (author's translation).Google Scholar

¹⁸⁹ Dietz and Suttasom v. Austria, App. No. 31185/13 (May 29, 2015), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁰ Verfassungsgerichtshof [VfGH] [Constitutional Court] June 19, 2013, Case Nos. G18/13 and 19/13.Google Scholar

¹⁹¹ VfGH, Case Nos. B125/11 and 138/11 (Dec. 12, 2012). In an earlier decision on the same case, the Court clarified that the law did not have to require but also did not exclude two people serving as witnesses, nor the ritual of question-answer-confirmation; see VfGH G 18/13 and 19/13, paras. 15–17.Google Scholar

¹⁹² Verfassungsgerichtshof [VfGH] [Constitutional Court] Dec. 12, 2013, Case Nos. G16/13 and 44/13.Google Scholar

¹⁹³ Verfassungsgerichtshof [VfGH] [Constitutional Court] Dec. 11, 2014, Case Nos. G119/14 and 120/14. On step-parent adoption for cohabiting same-sex partners, see X and others, App. No. 19010/07.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁴ VfGH, Case Nos. G16/13 and 44/13 at para. 54.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁵ VfGH, Case Nos. G119/4 and 120/14 at para. 48.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁶ Id. at paras. 39, 44–47.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁷ Markard, supra note 148.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁸ In both jurisdictions, some differences in treatment still exist. For example, the registered partner of a birth mother is not automatically her co-parent, and adoption can be burdensome. See Nora Markard, Supreme Court Strengthens Rights of Private Sperm Donors at the Expense of Lesbian Couples (Mar. 30, 2015), http://www.sexualorientationlaw.eu/120-supreme-court-strengthens-rights-of-private-sperm-donors-at-the-expense-of-lesbian-couples-germany. For a full list for Austria, see Rechtskomitee Lambda, Ungleichbehandlungen zur Ehe (Stand: Mai 2015), http://www.rklambda.at/images/publikationen/2015RKL_EPG_AbweichungenvomEherecht_V9_Mai2015.pdf.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁹ Karner v. Austria, 2003 IX Eur. Ct. H.R., para. 41; Kozak v. Poland, [2010] ECHR 280, para. 99; Vallianatos, App. Nos. 29381/09 and 32684/09 at para. 85; 124 BVerfGE 199 (220); 126 BVerfGE 400 (419); 131 BVerfGE 239, para. 57; 133 BVerfGE 59, para. 104; 133 BVerfGE 377, para. 77.Google Scholar

²⁰⁰ Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2620 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting) (citing DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Soc. Services, 489 U.S. 189, 196 (1989) and San Antonio Indep. Sch. District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 35–37 (1973)). See also id. at 2635–37 (Thomas, J., dissenting).Google Scholar

²⁰¹ Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir.), rev'd, Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652, 2668 (2013).Google Scholar

²⁰² Id. Google Scholar

²⁰³ Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 495 (1954).Google Scholar

²⁰⁴ But see supra note 189.Google Scholar

²⁰⁵ Perry, 671 F.3d at 1063–64.Google Scholar

²⁰⁶ Mexican Supreme Court, Amparo en revisión 704/2014, para. 169 (2015). As this is the fifth judgment on this matter, it now constitutes binding precedent, see Matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo. No existe razón de índole constitucional para no reconocerlo, Pleno de las Suprema Corte de Justicia [SCJN] [Supreme Court], Semanario Judicial de la Federación y su Gaceta, Décima Época, Libro 19, Tomo I, Junio de 2015, Tesis P./J. 46/2015 (10a.), Página 534 (Mex.). Cf. José María Serna de la Garza, The Concept of Jurisprudencia in Mexican Law, 1 Mexican L. Rev. 131 (2009).Google Scholar

²⁰⁷ See supra section B.IV.Google Scholar

²⁰⁸ Yoshino, supra note 78, at 793–98. The author advocates liberty-dominated dignity claims, but does not take into account that the protection level of liberty may be below that of equality, as in the European cases discussed in the preceding section. He uses the term “pluralism anxiety” to describe “the fear that we are fracturing into fiefs that do not speak with each other.” Id. at 747.Google Scholar

²⁰⁹ Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. 2584 at 2621 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting).Google Scholar

²¹⁰ The term polygamy actually covers very different practices that can also include polyandry or even same-sex polygyny, and anthropological research suggests that power structures can be complex. See Miriam Koktvedgaard Zeitzen, Polygamy: A Cross-Cultural Analysis (2008). For a feminist perspective, see Beverly Baines, Polygamy and Feminist Constitutionalism, in Feminist Constitutionalism: Global Perspectives 452 (Beverly Baines, Daphne Barak-Erez & Tsvi Kahana eds., 2012).Google Scholar

²¹¹ Obergefell, Transcript of Oral Argument, supra note 54, at 18.Google Scholar

²¹² Id. at 17.Google Scholar

²¹³ Kramer v. Union Free Sch. District, 395 U.S. 621, 627 (1969); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 634 (1969), Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 406 (1963).Google Scholar

²¹⁴ See Griswold, 381 U.S. at 485 (1965); Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500, 508 (1964); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 307–08 (1940).Google Scholar

²¹⁵ Oliari, App. Nos. 18766/11 and 36030/11.Google Scholar

²¹⁶ A marriage may not be concluded between direct relatives and between consanguine siblings. See Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch [BGB] [Civil Code], § 1307, https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/__1307.html.Google Scholar

²¹⁷ Strafgesetzbuch [StGB] [Penal Code] § 173, https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__173.html. This law criminalizes sexual intercourse (penile-vaginal only) between consanguine parents and children, and between consanguine siblings; only adults are liable. It is part of the section on Offenses Related to the Personal Status Registry, Marriage and the Family. Child abuse and sexual assault are part of the following section, Offenses Against Sexual Self-Determination.Google Scholar

²¹⁸ Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfGE] [Federal Constitutional Court], Feb. 26, 2008, 120 BVerfGE 224, paras. 44-49 (Hassemer, J., dissenting) – Geschwisterinzest [Sibling Incest]. This case was later confirmed by Stübing v. Germany, App. No. 43547/08 (Apr. 13, 2012), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/ (showing a large margin of appreciation on protection of morals, no consensus on sensitive issue). But see Deutscher Ethikrat, Inzestverbot Stellungnahme 40 (2014) (discussing that consensual incest is usually a result, not a source of family disruption).Google Scholar

²¹⁹ The siblings came from a broken home, and the brother never knew he had a sister. They met when he was 24 years old, she sixteen, and had four children. She was later found to be slightly mentally handicapped and highly dependent on her brother, who was once convicted for acts of domestic violence against her. 120 BVerfGE 224. Note that the Court was seized with a facial challenge.Google Scholar

²²⁰ Ethikrat, Deutscher, supra note 218, at 10–13.Google Scholar

²²¹ Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 578–79 (citing Stevens's dissent in Bowers v. Hardwick with approval).Google Scholar

²²² See, e.g., Tatjana Hörnle, Das Verbot des Geschwisterinzests—Verfassungsgerichtliche Bestätigung und verfassungsrechtliche Kritik, 61 NJW 2085 (2008); John Philipp Thurn, Eugenik und Moralschutz durch Strafrecht? Verfassungsrechtliche Anmerkungen zur Inzestverbotsentscheidung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts, 42 Kritische Justiz 74 (2009); Ali Al-Zand and Jan Siebenhüner, § 173 StGB—Eine kritische Betrachtung des strafrechtlichen Inzestverbots, 89 Kritische Vierteljahresschrift für Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft (KritV) 68 (2006). Deutscher Ethikrat, supra note 218, 72–74.Google Scholar

²²³ Tribe, , supra note 46, at 1944.Google Scholar

²²⁴ Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2625 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting); id. at 2639 (Thomas, J., dissenting).Google Scholar

²²⁵ Id. at 2642–43 (Alito, J., dissenting).Google Scholar

²²⁶ Id. at 2626 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting).Google Scholar

²²⁷ Sedgwick, Eve, The Epistemology of the Closet (1990).Google Scholar

²²⁸ Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2596.Google Scholar

²²⁹ Id. at 2643 (Alito, J., dissenting).Google Scholar

²³⁰ See Hillgruber, Christian, Wo bleibt die Freiheit der anderen? Es ist jedem freigestellt, wie er Homosexualität bewertet. Ein Plädoyer für den Schutz einer neuen Minderheit, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (Feb. 20, 2014), http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/staat-und-recht/homosexualitaet-schutz-und-freiheit-einer-neuen-minderheit-12812195.html; Matthias Matussek, Ich bin wohl homophob. Und das ist auch gut so, Die Welt (Feb. 12, 2014). For a critical discussion, see Anna Katharina Mangold, Die verfolgte Unschuld vom Lande oder: Warum es keines “Grundrechts auf Diskriminierung” bedarf, Verfassungsblog (Feb. 22, 2014), http://www.verfassungsblog.de/verfolgte-unschuld-vom-lande-oder-warum-es-keines-grundrechts-auf-diskriminierung-bedarf/. See also Ute Sacksofsky, Das Märchen vom Untergang der Ehe, 68 Merkur 143, 145 (2014).Google Scholar

²³¹ See Stolberg, Sheryl Gay, Kentucky Clerk Defies Court on Marriage Licenses for Gay Couples, N.Y. Times (Aug. 13, 2015), http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/us/kentucky-rowan-county-same-sex-marriage-licenses-kim-davis.html?_r=0.Google Scholar

²³² See Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014).Google Scholar

²³³ See Hall, Margaux J., A Fiduciary Theory of Health Entitlements, 35 Cardozo L. Rev. 1729 (2014).Google Scholar

²³⁴ See Photography, Elane, LLC v. Willock, 309 P.3d 53; cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 1787 (2014).Google Scholar

²³⁵ Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2602.Google Scholar