宗教和婚姻平等法规

N. Tebbe
{"title":"宗教和婚姻平等法规","authors":"N. Tebbe","doi":"10.31228/osf.io/f8kq7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To date, every state statute that has extended marriage equality to gay and lesbian couples has included accommodations for actors who oppose such marriages on religious grounds. Debate over those accommodations has occurred mostly between, on the one hand, people who urge broader religion protections and, on the other hand, those who support the types of accommodations that typically have appeared in existing statutes. This article argues that the debate should be widened to include arguments that the existing accommodations are normatively and constitutionally problematic. Even states that presumptively are most friendly to LGBT citizens, as measured by their demonstrated willingness to enact marriage equality laws, have included provisions that may well retrench on civil rights principles in ways that are significant but underappreciated. Especially at a moment when marriage equality is moving into jurisdictions that are even more concerned with preserving religious freedom, arguments against existing accommodations should be made available.","PeriodicalId":144581,"journal":{"name":"Harvard Law and Policy Review","volume":"148 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Religion and Marriage Equality Statutes\",\"authors\":\"N. Tebbe\",\"doi\":\"10.31228/osf.io/f8kq7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"To date, every state statute that has extended marriage equality to gay and lesbian couples has included accommodations for actors who oppose such marriages on religious grounds. Debate over those accommodations has occurred mostly between, on the one hand, people who urge broader religion protections and, on the other hand, those who support the types of accommodations that typically have appeared in existing statutes. This article argues that the debate should be widened to include arguments that the existing accommodations are normatively and constitutionally problematic. Even states that presumptively are most friendly to LGBT citizens, as measured by their demonstrated willingness to enact marriage equality laws, have included provisions that may well retrench on civil rights principles in ways that are significant but underappreciated. Especially at a moment when marriage equality is moving into jurisdictions that are even more concerned with preserving religious freedom, arguments against existing accommodations should be made available.\",\"PeriodicalId\":144581,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Harvard Law and Policy Review\",\"volume\":\"148 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-03-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Harvard Law and Policy Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/f8kq7\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Harvard Law and Policy Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/f8kq7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

迄今为止,每一个将婚姻平等扩展到男女同性恋伴侣的州法规都包括了对基于宗教理由反对这种婚姻的演员的照顾。关于这些便利的争论主要发生在两方之间,一方是敦促扩大宗教保护范围的人,另一方是支持现有法规中通常出现的便利类型的人。本文认为,应该扩大辩论范围,包括现有的住宿在规范和宪法上都有问题的论点。即使是那些被认为对LGBT公民最友好的州,从他们颁布婚姻平等法律的意愿来衡量,也包括了一些条款,这些条款可能会以重要但不被重视的方式削弱民权原则。尤其是在婚姻平等正在进入更关心维护宗教自由的司法管辖区的时候,反对现有便利的论据应该是可用的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Religion and Marriage Equality Statutes
To date, every state statute that has extended marriage equality to gay and lesbian couples has included accommodations for actors who oppose such marriages on religious grounds. Debate over those accommodations has occurred mostly between, on the one hand, people who urge broader religion protections and, on the other hand, those who support the types of accommodations that typically have appeared in existing statutes. This article argues that the debate should be widened to include arguments that the existing accommodations are normatively and constitutionally problematic. Even states that presumptively are most friendly to LGBT citizens, as measured by their demonstrated willingness to enact marriage equality laws, have included provisions that may well retrench on civil rights principles in ways that are significant but underappreciated. Especially at a moment when marriage equality is moving into jurisdictions that are even more concerned with preserving religious freedom, arguments against existing accommodations should be made available.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信