The document discusses the evolution of the gay marriage debate from 1999 to 2009. It summarizes Michael Warner's argument from his 1999 book that gay marriage would create a dual-class system and continue inequality. However, it notes that the 2003 Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down sodomy laws, fundamentally changed the legal arguments regarding state regulation of relationships between consenting adults. The document also outlines developments in gay rights and same-sex partnerships across various states in the intervening decade.

1. THE TROUBLE WITH NORMAL BY MICHAEL WARNER THE EVOLUTION OF THE GAY MARRIAGE DEBATE 1999-2009 AND

2. GAY MARRIAGE = STATE REGULATED SEX? Warner makes the argument that gay marriage would result in equality for some but the denial of rights to others -- essentially a continuation of the current dual-class society . His argument stems from the Bowers v. Hardwick Supreme Court decision that upheld anti-sodomy laws in many states across the US. But Bowers v. Hardwick no longer applies to this argument.

3. IN THE DECADE SINCE THE TROUBLE WITH NORMAL 'S PUBLICATION: Lawrence v. Texas United States Supreme Court decision in June 2003

4. Struck down state laws banning the practice of sodomy between consenting same-sex or heterosexual adults in private

5. Fundamentally altered the grounds of the state to legislate sex acts between adults

6. Lawrence v. Texas The legal arguments for striking down the sodomy ban were twofold -- both of which hold important implications for state regulation of consensual adult relationships Due Process The principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person under the law, instead of respecting only some of those rights. Lawrence v. Texas applied "substantive due process," which enabled the plaintiffs to argue that they had been denied a constitutionally-based liberty (a right to privacy) and that sodomy laws limited their full rights as citizens by intruding on their consensual private acts

7. Equal Protection The 14 th Amendment states that "no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the full protection of the law." Despite the fact that the Declaration of Independence asserted that "all men are created equal," there were no provisions in place to ensure that all men are treated equal[ly]. The equal protection clause gave the judiciary the power to enforce that principle against the states. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor moved to strike down sodomy laws based on equal protection -- and in doing so, provided a legal argument for striking down laws that prohibited against a group, rather than an act. (Texas' sodomy law was homosexuals-only.)

8. In her opinion, she noted that this element of equal protection created an opportunity for recognition of same-sex couples, if the states banning marriage for gays also banned domestic partnerships and civil unions. She reasoned that laws banning same-sex marriage were permissible when they intended to "preserve" traditional marriage, but if the laws only served to bar homosexuals from rights that would be otherwise available (such as through civil unions) then they would be unconstitutional under equal protection. Lawrence v. Texas

9. IN THE DECADE SINCE THE TROUBLE WITH NORMAL 'S PUBLICATION: Massachusetts and Connecticut fully recognize gay marriage

10. Vermont, New Jersey, and New Hampshire have civil unions that are explicitly defined as offering the same benefits as marriage under state law

11. Maine, Hawaii, DC, Oregon, Washington, and Maryland have same-sex domestic partnerships which offer some, not all, of the benefits of marriage

12. Rhode Island and New York recognize same-sex marriages performed in different states

13. Thirty states have constitutional amendments that explicitly define marriage as between one man and one woman , or explicitly ban recognition of same-sex civil unions or domestic partnerships ON THE OTHER SIDE ...

14. ON THE OTHER SIDE ... Three states prohibit any legal status for same sex couples ON THE OTHER SIDE ...

15. PROPOSITION 8 Amendment to California's state constitution to ban gay marriage passed with [AMT] of the vote

16. The YES ON 8 campaign was funded by national corporate donors and members of the Mormon Church

17. PROPOSITION 8 Legal status of couples married before Prop 8's passage is in question