Tumbling Towers as Turning Points: Will 9/11 Usher in a New Civil Rights Era for Gay Men and Lesbians in the United States?

This article examines the events of 9/11, and the potential resultant shifts in attitude, policies, and laws in the United States, through the lens of civil rights extended to gay and lesbian citizens. It seeks, but does not purport to definitively discover, the true meaning of the phrase life will never be the same. It asks, but does not purport to fully answer, whether historians a century or two hence will look back on 9/11 as the turning point when the United States began to fulfill its promise of liberty to all people, or whether this date will be earmarked as the time when the United States, wounded and weary, rejected individual civil liberties in favor of a restrictive but arguably safer society. The next section of this article, Section II, provides a brief status report on the civil rights of gay men and lesbians in the United States prior to 9/11. Additionally, Section II provides information in terms of the legal status of gays and lesbians and public attitudes about this segment of the U.S. population. Section III looks at how the nation has reacted to 9/11, and highlights the polar opposite reactions of those who seek to preserve civil liberties in this time of crisis and those who cite 9/11 as justification for significantly restricting these liberties. Section IV examines the situation through the narrower focus of civil rights extended to, and those denied to, gay and lesbian citizens of the United States. In addition to examining the important role gay and lesbian people played in 9/11 events, Section IV recounts the struggle of gay and lesbian people seeking eligibility for remedies routinely afforded their heterosexual counterparts. Section IV also identifies two other civil rights areas that may be affected by the events of 9/11: anti- discrimination in employment law and hate crime legislation. Section V provides a brief conclusion

Tumbling Towers as Turning Points: Will 9/11 Usher in a New Civil Rights Era for Gay Men and Lesbians in the United States?

This article examines the events of 9/11, and the potential resultant shifts in attitude, policies, and laws in the United States, through the lens of civil rights extended to gay and lesbian citizens. It seeks, but does not purport to definitively discover, the true meaning of the phrase life will never be the same. It asks, but does not purport to fully answer, whether historians a century or two hence will look back on 9/11 as the turning point when the United States began to fulfill its promise of liberty to all people, or whether this date will be earmarked as the time when the United States, wounded and weary, rejected individual civil liberties in favor of a restrictive but arguably safer society. The next section of this article, Section II, provides a brief status report on the civil rights of gay men and lesbians in the United States prior to 9/11. Additionally, Section II provides information in terms of the legal status of gays and lesbians and public attitudes about this segment of the U.S. population. Section III looks at how the nation has reacted to 9/11, and highlights the polar opposite reactions of those who seek to preserve civil liberties in this time of crisis and those who cite 9/11 as justification for significantly restricting these liberties. Section IV examines the situation through the narrower focus of civil rights extended to, and those denied to, gay and lesbian citizens of the United States. In addition to examining the important role gay and lesbian people played in 9/11 events, Section IV recounts the struggle of gay and lesbian people seeking eligibility for remedies routinely afforded their heterosexual counterparts. Section IV also identifies two other civil rights areas that may be affected by the events of 9/11: anti- discrimination in employment law and hate crime legislation. Section V provides a brief conclusion

Attempted Cap on Punitive Damages Continues to Spark Debate

The debate surrounding federal product liability law has not been silenced by recent compromises reached by the House and Senate regarding appropriate boundaries for such laws. To the contrary, President Clinton\u27s threatened veto of Congress\u27s Common Sense Product Liability Reform Act of 1996 and continued opposition by the ABA Section of Litigation and other groups to parts of the Act guarantee that the 20-year-old debate will continue to rage

Common Sense Legal Reforms Act Takes Center Stage

This article discusses the extensive and highly controversial civil litigation reforms in Congress, which have been approved largely along party lines in the House of Representatives

Pro\u27s and Con\u27s of Proposed Rule 23 Amendments

This article investigates whether the proposed amendments to Rule 23 (recently approved for publication and comment by the U.S. Judicial Conference\u27s Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure) are a modest first step toward necessary class action reforms, or a presciption for class action abuse

Higher Burden for ADA Plaintiffs

Plaintiffs in Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) cases have a signigicantly higher burden to show a disability due to a triliogy of recent decisions. This article examines this recent case law

Public Opinion Polls and Surveys as Evidence: Suggestions for Resolving Confusing and Conflicting Standards Governing Weight and Admissibility

Section I provides a basic overview of public opinion polls, beginning with a brief explanation of the current popularity of this type of data, followed by a discussion of the courts\u27 historic treatment of survey evidence and a review of modern standards which courts use in evaluating the weight and admissibility of polling data. The exact rules governing the conduct of litigants and their respective counsel in commissioning and executing a survey and those governing the courts\u27 refereeing of evidentiary disputes over polling data remain unclear. These unresolved issues are discussed in Section II. Suggestions for moving toward a more uniform and more practical method of evaluating the admissibility and weight of survey data are set forth in Section III

Will New Legislation Preempt State Court Class Actions?

Proponents of 1995\u27s federal securities litigation reform are proposing new legislation to prevent plaintiffs from using state court class actions to circumvent the restrictive federal rules. This article reviews these legislative proposals

ABA Delegates Amend Model Rule

The ABA House of Delegates has amended Model Rule 4.2 regarding whom attorneys may ethically contact directly during the course of litigation or other legal matters. This article discusses the ramifications of this change

Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Couples in Ohio: Unsettled and Unsettling Law

In addition to the need for homes for children without any legally recognized parent, the need for a child who already has one legal parent to be adopted by the parent\u27s gay or lesbian partner who is already serving as a de facto parent is very important to the child\u27s emotional stability and material well being. This type of adoption, frequently referred to as a second-parent adoption,\u27 is the focal point of this article. However, the matters discussed herein also apply directly and by analogy to situations where gay and lesbian couples and heterosexual unmarried couples desire to jointly adopt a child who is a ward of the state. Section II of this article provides an overview of Ohio adoption law. Section III presents the case of In re Jane Doe, starting with the decision of the lesbian couple to jointly bring a child into this world, and continuing with the efforts of both mothers to obtain legal recognition for the de facto parent\u27s status through adoption, and the legal strategies employed by the mothers\u27 attorneys, also addressed are the court-appointed Guardian Ad Litem (GAL), the social science data supplied by the amicus curiae to help the court reach a fully informed decision, and the Ohio courts\u27 rejection of the possibility of second-parent adoptions in Ohio. Section IV offers a critique of the courts\u27 analysis of the case. Section V is a brief conclusion