Civil and Human Rights

Civil Rights Law Journal Symposium: Arising Legal Issues in the Marriage Debate

Details

Tuesday, October 23, 2012
9:00 pm
American Constitution Society, Federalist Society

Speakers and Panelists: 

  • Helen Alvare, Associate Professor of Law, George Mason School of Law
  • Ryan Anderson, William E. Simon Fellow in Religion and a Free Society, Heritage Foundation
  • David H. Gans, Director of the Human Rights, Civil Rights, and Citizenship Program, Constitutional Accountability Center
  • Frank Gulino, Associate Professor of Legal Writing, Maurcie A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra Law School
  • Shannon Minter, Legal Director, National Center for Lesbian Rights
  • Ed Whelan, President, Ethics and Public Policy Center

Description:

The Symposium will cover the legal and public policy implications of how marriage is defined by law-makers and by the courts. The panel will examine the legal standards that states must meet in order to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman or to change the definition of marriage to include members of the same sex. The foundation for this discussion will be an examination of the legal battle over Proposition 8 in California, which is making its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Symposium is co-sponsored by the George Mason American Constitution Society and the George Mason Federalist Society.

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
April 25, 2025

Debate over transgender rights grows more fraught in new Trump era

The Christian Science Monitor
Actions by the Trump administration have been pushing back on transgender inclusion, amid sharp public...
Civil and Human Rights
March 19, 2025

Viewpoint: The North Dakota Constitution’s protections include reproductive autonomy

North Dakota's Grand Forks Herald
The Court should live up to North Dakota’s history as a state with some of...
By: Nargis Aslami
Civil and Human Rights
February 27, 2025

What You Should Know About the Right to Protection in the Trump Era

Washington Monthly
The 14th Amendment was meant to enforce the laws equally, not put vulnerable populations in...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Shilling v. Trump

In Shilling v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.
Civil and Human Rights
February 19, 2025

History of the North Dakota Constitution Amicus Brief in Access Independent Health Services Inc., d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic v. Wrigley

Center for Reproductive Rights
Amicus is the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank and public interest law firm dedicated...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Talbott v. Trump

In Talbott v. Trump, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.