Civil and Human Rights
Civil Rights Law Journal Symposium: Arising Legal Issues in the Marriage Debate
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
April 25, 2025
Debate over transgender rights grows more fraught in new Trump era
Actions by the Trump administration have been pushing back on transgender inclusion, amid sharp public...
March 19, 2025
Viewpoint: The North Dakota Constitution’s protections include reproductive autonomy
The Court should live up to North Dakota’s history as a state with some of...
February 27, 2025
What You Should Know About the Right to Protection in the Trump Era
The 14th Amendment was meant to enforce the laws equally, not put vulnerable populations in...
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.
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
Amicus is the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank and public interest law firm dedicated...
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.