Reading Deboer and Obergefell through The ‘Moral Readings versus Originalisms’ Debate: From Constitutional ‘Empty Cupboards’ to Evolving Understandings

31 Constitutional Commentary 441 (2016)

11 Problema: Anuario de Filosofía y Teoria del Derecho 85-130 (Dec. 2017)

Boston Univ. School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 17-12

44 Pages Posted: 2 May 2017

See all articles by Linda C. McClain

Linda C. McClain

Boston University - School of Law

Date Written: November 2, 2016

Abstract

This article assesses the debate over “moral reading” and “originalist” approaches to constitutional interpretation by evaluating the momentous constitutional controversy in the United States over access by same-sex couples to civil marriage. Justice Kennedy’s landmark opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), which held that such couples have a fundamental right to marry, employed a “moral reading” in emphasizing dual forms of evolving understanding: of constitutional guarantees of equality and the “promise of liberty” and of the institution of marriage. By contrast to the dissenters, the majority rejected a static, narrow reading of the fundamental right to marry – and marriage – and stressed the role of “insight” and generational progress. Evolving understanding played a similar role in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (Mass. 2013), which provided a template for Kennedy’s opinion. This article also demonstrates how the contrasting approaches to interpretation in DeBoer v. Snyder (reversed by Obergefell) previewed Obergefell’s interpretative battle, but with the sides reversed. Some legal scholars criticized DeBoer and offered originalist arguments for same-sex marriage, but those arguments persuaded neither other originalist scholars nor the Obergefell dissenters. The article enlists the “moral reading” approach developed in James E. Fleming’s Fidelity to Our Imperfect Constitution: For Moral Readings and Against Originalisms (2015). Such moral readings have been crucial for making the Fourteenth Amendment less of (in Justice Ginsburg’s words) an “empty cupboard” for gay men and lesbians, just as they have played a role in making it less empty in the context of sex equality.

Keywords: Constitutional Interpretation, Marriage, Fourteenth Amendment, Originalism, Moral Reading, Obergefell v. Hodges, Sex Equality, Gay Rights

Suggested Citation

McClain, Linda C., Reading Deboer and Obergefell through The ‘Moral Readings versus Originalisms’ Debate: From Constitutional ‘Empty Cupboards’ to Evolving Understandings (November 2, 2016). 31 Constitutional Commentary 441 (2016), 11 Problema: Anuario de Filosofía y Teoria del Derecho 85-130 (Dec. 2017) , Boston Univ. School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 17-12, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2961386

Linda C. McClain (Contact Author)

Boston University - School of Law ( email )

765 Commonwealth Avenue
Boston, MA 02215
United States

Do you want regular updates from SSRN on Twitter?

Paper statistics

Downloads
52
Abstract Views
868
rank
505,493
PlumX Metrics