Notes
- Rona Marech and Vanessa Hua, “Politics on Parade for Chinese New Year Fest;” “Same-sex Marriage Float Allowed-Falun Gong Rejected,” San Francisco Chronicle (February 19, 2005).
- Ibid.
- See Li v. State, CA A124877 (Oregon 2005).
- The first anti-miscegenation law was passed in Virginia in 1662, which imposed a harsher fine for interracial relationships than non intraracial relationships, stating “if any Christian (meaning white) shall commit fornication with a Negro man or woman, he shall pay double the fines of the former act.” Maya Grosz, “To Have and to Hold: Property and State Regulation of Sexuality and Marriage,” New York University Review of Law & Social Change 24 (1998): 235, 239. Though originating in the 1600's to prevent free whites from marrying and having sexual relations with black slaves, most of the anti-miscegenation laws were expanded to include “Indians” (meaning Native Americans), “Hindus” (South Asians), “Mongolians” (Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans), and “Malays” (Filipinos). Leti Volpp, “Constructing Latcrit Theory: Diversity, Commonality, and Identity: American Mestizo: Filipinos and Anti-miscegenation Laws in California,: University of California Davis Law Review 33 (2000): 795, 799.
- 388 U.S. 1 (1967).
- Ibid., 3.
- Josephine Ross, “The Sexualization of Difference: A Comparison of Mixed-Race and Same-Gender Marriage,” Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 37 255, 263 (quoting Lonas v. State); See Lonas v. State, 50 Tennessee. (1 Heisk.) 287, 310 (1871).
- See Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 440 Massachusetts 309 (2003).
- A brief was filed by the United Church of Christ, the Unitarian Universalist Associations, and gay rights groups of Baptists, Catholics, and Jews. Rich Barlow, “Religion a Force in Gay Marriage Debate,” Boston Globe (June 7, 2003).
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Text of decision by Judge Richard A. Kramer: “Tentative Decision on Applications for Write of Mandate and Summary Judgment” available at http://www.eqca.org/atf/cf/%7b687DF34F-6480-4BCD-9C2B-1F33FD8E1294%7d/Kramer%20Decision%203-14-05.pdf, March 14, 2005.
- Bob Egelko, “Judge Strikes Down Ban on Same-sex Marriage, The Ruling: Law Violated ‘Basic Human Right,’” San Francisco Chronicle (March 15, 2005).
- Ibid.
- John M. Kang, “Deconstructing the Ideology of White Aesthetics,” Michigan Journal of Race and Law 2 (1997): 283, 325 (citing Debates and Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of California, 1878–79, at 632 (Sacramento State Office, 1880).
- Scott v. Georgia, 39 Ga. 321, 323 (1869).
- Ross, note 8, at 267.
- Ibid.
- Grosz, note 4, at 240.
- Joan Biskupic, “Same-sex Couples Redefining Family Law in USA,” USA Today (February 17, 2003), http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-02-17-cover-samesex_x.htm.
- Ross, note 8, at 267.
- Ibid., 268.
- See Att'y Gen.'s Mem., Mem. in Opp. to Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J. and In Supp. of Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J., Goodridge, 14 Massachusetts Law Reporter. 591 at 64.
- Pre-Trial Brief for the State of Hawaii at 1, Baehr v. Miike, CIV. No. 91–1394, 1996 WL 694235 (Hawaii Circuit Court. Dec. 3, 1996), http://www.hawaiilaw-yer.com/same_sex/briefs/statbref.txt.
- 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
- Hrishi Karthikeyan & Gabriel J. Chin, “Preserving Racial Identity: Population Patterns and the Application of Anti-Miscegenation Statutes to Asian Americans, 1910–1950,” Asian Law Journal 9 (2002): 1, 5.
- Ibid.
- William D. Zabel, “Interracial Marriage and the Law,” Atlantic Monthly (October 1965), reprinted in Interracialism: Black-White Intermarriage in American History, Literature, and Law (Werner Sollors, ed. 2000).
- Ibid.
- Volpp, note 5, at 819 (citing Visco v. Lampton, No. C319408, Petition for Order of Alternative Mandamus (June 3, 1931), Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Judge Walter Guerin)).
- Vermont and Connecticut are the only two states in the nation that recognizes civil unions. Connecticut was the first state to voluntarily offer civil unions through legislative action than court order. See William Yardley, “Connecticut Approves Civil Unions for Gays,” New York Times, (April 21, 2005).
- States with domestic partnerships include Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin. See Lambda Legal Website, http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/documents/record?record=403.
- See Kitty Mak, Partners in Law, 24 L.A. Lawyer 35 (2001).
- Kramer, note 13, at 9.
- Ibid.
- Ibid., 15–16.
- Ross, note 8, at 265.
- Texas. Court of Appeals. 263, 278 (1877).
- Kramer, note 13, at 7.
- Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal. 2d 711, 727 (1948).
- Brief of Amicus Curiae Hawaii's Future Today at 3, Baehr v. Miike, CIV. No. 91–1394, 1996 WL 694235 (Hawaii Circuit Court. December 3, 1996), http://www.hawaiilawyer.com/same_sex/briefs/hftbref.txt.
- Kramer, note 13, at 6.
- Volpp, note 5, at 809.
- Keith Aoki, “Foreign-ness” & Asian American Identities: Yellowface, World War II Propaganda, and Bifurcated Racial Stereotypes,” UCLA Asian Pacific American Law Journal 4 (1996): 1, 29.
- See Roger Daniels, The Politics of Prejudice: The Anti-Japanese Movement in California and the Struggle for Japanese Exclusion (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1977): 65–91.
- Ibid., 90.
- Volpp, note 5, at 810.
- Bruno Lasker, Filipino Immigration to Continental United States and to Hawaii 98 (1931) (citing Hearings before the Comm. On Immigration and Naturalization, 71st Congress 35 (1930).
- 39 Georgia 321, 323 (1869).
- Ross, note 8, at 262.
- Ibid.
- Scott D. Weiner, Created Equal: Why Gay Rights Matter to America. Michael Nava and Robert Dawidoff, Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 30 (1995): 267, note 25.
- Ibid.
- See Ross, note 8, at 263.
- Ibid.
- See Helen Zia, Asian American Dreams: The Emergence of an American People, (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2000): 46.
- Ibid.
- Robert S. Chang, “Toward an Asian American Legal Scholarship: Critical Race Theory, Post-Structuralism, and Narrative Space,” California Law Review 81 (1993): 1241, 1258.
- U.S. Census Bureau, Money Income in the United States: 2001, (Sept. 2002): 19, www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p60-218.pdf.
- The model minority myth hides the fact that large segments within the broad “Asian American” community are economically and socially disadvantaged. See U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Civil Rights Issues Facing Asian Americans in the 1990s (1990): 17, (citing that Laotians, Hmongs, Cambodians and Vietnamese have poverty rates of 67.2%, 65.5%, 46.9%, and 33.5%, respectively). The myth also pits Asian Americans against other minority groups by portraying the other groups as responsible for their socioeconomic standing. Chang, note 59, at 1264.
- Chang, note 59, at 1261.
- Jon Ortiz, “Mixed Reaction to Gay-rights Boycott Plan,” Sacramento Bee (September 4, 2004).
- Jeffery C. Mingo, “More Colors Than the Rainbow: Gay Men of Color Speak About Their Identities and Legal Choices,” Law and Sex 8 (1998): 561, 567.
- Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 440 Massachusetts. 309, 336 (2003).
- Gay Rights, Special Rights: Inside the Homosexual Agenda (Jeremiah Films 1993).
- Mingo, note 64, at 566.