Case Study: Nina Baehr v Miike, 1996, 1999¹º³

Kapitel in diesem Buch

1. Frontmatter i
2. Contents vii
3. Acknowledgments xi
4. Introduction 1
5. 1. “Fundamental” Rights versus State Interests 7
6. I. “I Am Not Talking Very Much Like a Lawyer” 8
7. II. The U.S. Supreme Court and “Fundamental” Rights 13
8. III. The Liberty and Rights Protected by the Due Process Clause 15
9. Case Study: U.S. v Carolene Products, 1938, Footnote 4³⁶ 19
10. IV. Is There a Protected Liberty Interest for Persons Having Intimate Homosexual Relations? 22
11. Case Study: Bowers v Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986)⁵º 24
12. Case Study: Roy Romer, Governor v Richard Evans, et al., 1996⁵⁴ 26
13. V. The Limits of Sexual Privacy 29
14. VI. Summing Up 30
15. 2. Marriage and Marital Privacy 31
16. I. “I Should Like to Suggest a Substantial Change for Your Consideration” 32
17. II. Heterosexual Marriage 35
18. Case Study: Skinner v Oklahoma, 1942⁴¹ 42
19. III.Molecular Changes in the Definition and Reality of the Traditional Marital Relationship 44
20. Case Study: Griswold v Connecticut, 1965⁵º 46
21. IV. The Dilemma of Intimate Violence and Congressional Passage of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), 1994 49
22. Case Study: Joshua DeShaney, a minor, by his guardian ad litem, et al., v Winnebago County,Wisconsin Department of Social Services, et al., 1988⁵⁹ 50
23. Case Study: U.S. v Morrison, 1999⁷⁵ 56
24. V. Same-Sex Marriage 60
25. Case Study: Stan Baker, et al. v State of Vermont, et al., 1999⁹⁴ 61
26. VI. Congressional Passage of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), 1996 63
27. Case Study: Nina Baehr v Miike, 1996, 1999¹º³ 64
28. VII. Summing Up 67
29. 3. The “Rhapsody of the Unitary Family”¹ 68
30. I. “Something Smells about This Case” 70
31. II. Who Is Family? 73
32. Case Study: Village of Belle Terre v. Bruce Boraas, 1974²³ 75
33. III. Family Privacy Rights versus State Interests 77
34. Case Study: Reynolds v U.S., 1878²⁸ 78
35. Case Study: Michael H. v Gerald D., 1989 79
36. IV. Family Privacy Rights versus Personal Autonomy and Other Constitutional Rights 83
37. Case Study: Eisenstadt v Baird, 1971 87
38. V. Summing Up 89
39. 4. Motherhood or Not, That Is Her Decision 90
40. I. “I Will Be God-damned!”³ 91
41. II. Not Having Children: Abortion as Personal Right 93
42. Case Study: Roe v Wade, 1972¹¹ 95
43. III. After Roe, What Are the Limits of “State Actions” That Regulate the Abortion Procedure? 101
44. Case Study: Webster v Reproductive Health Services, 1989 104
45. IV. After Roe, What Are a Husband’s Rights? 108
46. Case Study: Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey, 1992 110
47. VI. Back into the Vortex: The “Partial Birth” Abortion Controversy 114
48. Case Study: Stenberg v Carhart, 1999 117
49. VII. Summing Up 120
50. 5. Raising the Child “Father Knows Best”? 122
51. I. “This Is Really a Ridiculous Case to Be Absorbing Our Time” 123
52. II. Raising and Educating Children 127
53. Case Study: Wisconsin v Yoder, 1972 132
54. III. The Mental and Physical Health and Welfare of the Child 139
55. Case Study: Parham v J.R., 1979 146
56. Case Study: Ingraham v Wright, 1977 153
57. IV. Children’s Rights: Visiting the Grandparents 160
58. Case Study: Troxel v Granville, 2000 162
59. V. Summing Up 166
60. 6. “Let Me Go!” 168
61. I. “This Case Should Never Have Been Started” 170
62. II. Terminating Life Support for an Incompetent Family Member: Passive Euthanasia 175
63. Case Study: Cruzan v Director,Missouri Department of Health, 1990 177
64. III. Physician-Assisted Suicide: Active Euthanasia 181
65. Case Study:Washington State v Glucksberg, 1997; Vacco v Quill, 1997 186
66. IV. Summing Up 198
67. 7. Family and Personal Privacy in the Twenty-First Century 199
68. I. “She Kept Screaming” 200
69. II. Is the Home Still a Castle? 203
70. Case Study: Kyello v U.S., 2000 204
71. III. The “Medical Necessity” Exception and Federal Anti-Marijuana-Use Law 208
72. IV. Summing Up 211
73. Notes 219
74. Bibliography 251
75. Index 259
76. About the Author 265