The First Amendment, Varieties of Neutrality, and Same-Sex Marriage

This article compares the difficulty in achieving a public stance of neutrality toward sexual orientation with the difficulty in achieving neutrality toward religious belief. Strict separation treats religion as a private commitment, with firm limits on government cooperation with religion and stron...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Gill, Emily R. 1944- (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: Cambridge Univ. Press [2009]
In: Politics and religion
Year: 2009, Volume: 2, Issue: 3, Pages: 353-377
Online Access: Volltext (Resolving-System)
Volltext (doi)

MARC

LEADER 00000caa a22000002 4500
001 1694587673
003 DE-627
005 20230810101401.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 200415s2009 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1017/S175504830999023X  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)1694587673 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1694587673 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 0  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |e VerfasserIn  |0 (DE-588)1047619776  |0 (DE-627)778706621  |0 (DE-576)401427811  |4 aut  |a Gill, Emily R.  |d 1944- 
109 |a Gill, Emily R. 1944- 
245 1 4 |a The First Amendment, Varieties of Neutrality, and Same-Sex Marriage 
264 1 |c [2009] 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a This article compares the difficulty in achieving a public stance of neutrality toward sexual orientation with the difficulty in achieving neutrality toward religious belief. Strict separation treats religion as a private commitment, with firm limits on government cooperation with religion and strong protection for free exercise. Formal neutrality discounts religion as a basis either for conferring special benefits or for withholding generally available benefits. Positive neutrality attends to the practical effects of public policy, sometimes requiring an abandonment of nonestablishment in favor of policies that allow for greater protection for free exercise of religion. I argue that none of these forms of neutrality establishes impartiality regarding either religious belief or same-sex marriage. First, Michael McConnell's "disestablishment" approach to sexual orientation and same-sex marriage instantiates are neither neutrality nor civic equality. Second, while formal neutrality may render an establishment more inclusive, it may exclude those whose beliefs and practices are not deemed in accordance with public purposes. Third, although positive neutrality may remove burdens from same-sex couples whose conscientious convictions may impel them to marry, it may still favor some kinds of practices over others. 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Politics and religion  |d Cambridge [u.a.] : Cambridge Univ. Press, 2008  |g 2(2009), 3, Seite 353-377  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)560846134  |w (DE-600)2417736-2  |w (DE-576)29433923X  |x 1755-0491  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:2  |g year:2009  |g number:3  |g pages:353-377 
856 4 0 |u https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/politics-and-religion/article/first-amendment-varieties-of-neutrality-and-samesex-marriage/006BE96D7DBFD2740108C9EA58FAB585  |x Resolving-System 
856 |u https://doi.org/10.1017/S175504830999023X  |x doi  |3 Volltext 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
ITA |a 1  |t 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 3623885231 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1694587673 
LOK |0 005 20200415123735 
LOK |0 008 200415||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-Tue135  |c DE-627  |d DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a ixzs  |a ixzo  |a rwrk 
ORI |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw 
REL |a 1 
SUB |a REL