Same-Sex Marriage in South Africa: A Constitutional Possibility

The South African Constitution is unlike any other in the world in terms of its inclusion of sexual orientation. The Constitutional Court has taken a clear position in interpreting the Bill of Rights and implementing its goal of protecting individuals and groups from discrimination. The Sodomy, Immigration, and Spousal Benefits Cases demonstrate that the Constitutional Court recognizes that homosexuals have a Constitutional right to equality, human dignity, and privacy, and that the Court is willing to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination and social prejudice.Section I of this Note will discuss some of the key provisions of the South African Bill of Rights that will effect the Court’s consideration of same-sex marriage. Gays and lesbians in South Africa have strong textual arguments for the recognition of same-sex marriage based on the explicit language in the Constitution protecting sexual orientation. Section II will review the development of the Constitutional Court’s Bill of Rights jurisprudence. The Constitutional Court has addressed sodomy, immigration, spousal benefits, and adoption under the sexual orientation provision and has outlined a clear analytical framework under the right to equality. Section III will consider same-sex marriage within the framework of the South African Constitution and the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court to determine how the Court should resolve the issue of whether same-sex marriage should be recognized as a constitutional right. This section will consider the textual and precedential arguments for same-sex marriage, as well as some of the social arguments against recognizing full marriage rights for gays and lesbians. This Note concludes that denying homosexual couples the right to marry is unconstitutional under the South African Constitution

When Your Body Is Your Business

Surrogacy in the United States is a multi-million dollar industry in which well paid professionals seek out specially qualified women to fill the difficult job of being a surrogate. Surrogates enter lengthy contracts in which they agree, in intricate and intimate detail, to provide a service for significant compensation—as a group, surrogates in the United States are paid well over $22 million per year. This Article argues that surrogates are professionals in this for-profit industry and are required to report surrogacy compensation as income. As a corollary, surrogates may deduct most of their surrogacy-related expenses as business deductions. Being a surrogate is a highly personal service and the expenses the surrogate incurs—such as for maternity clothes or medical care—are typically treated as nondeductible personal expenses, but when your body is your business, the personal is business

Wedlocked

For as long as marriage has existed in the United States, divorce has been its necessary opposite. So strong is the need for divorce that the Supreme Court has suggested it is a fundamental right, and every state in the country allows access to no-fault divorce. For opposite-sex couples, legally ending their marriage is possible as a matter of right. For married same-sex couples, however, state DoMAs (Defense of Marriage Acts) have been a stumbling block – preventing access to divorce in some states. Same-sex couples in numerous states are being told by attorneys and judges that they cannot terminate their legal marriage. In a word, these couples are wedlocked.This article proceeds in three parts. Part I will address the question: “Who needs divorce?” The answer: Everyone who is in a legal marriage in which they no longer wish to remain a party. Part I of this article discusses the importance of divorce to married couples who no longer share their lives, and sets out the array of intractable issues that arise when a couple – whether opposite-sex or same-sex – is unable to end a marriage. Part II addresses the question: “Do courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over same-sex divorce?” The answer: Yes. In the vast majority of states, nothing has stripped state courts of general jurisdiction of the power to exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over a same-sex divorce. Part III addresses the question: “Can a court grant a same-sex divorce?” The answer: Yes. Again, the vast majority of state DoMAs neither explicitly nor implicitly prevents a court from granting a divorce to same-sex couples. Part IV takes on the question: “How can a same-sex couple get a divorce?” This Part explains how a court can grant a same-sex divorce by applying the residency state’s divorce statute, the divorce statute of the marrying state, or by granting equitable relief. Finally, Part V asks the question: “Are courts required to grant same-sex divorce?” The answer: Yes. Part V asserts that denying same-sex couples access to divorce violates due process and equal protection. These constitutional provisions require states to provide access to divorce to same-sex couples to prevent them from remaining wedlocked

Vitamin D Supplementation for the Treatment of Depressive Symptoms in Women with Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Aim. To determine the efficacy and safety of vitamin D3 supplementation in reducing depressive symptoms in women with type 2 diabetes (T2D), depression, and low vitamin D. Methods. In this double-blind randomized active comparator-controlled trial, women with significant depressive symptoms as assessed by the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) scale received weekly oral vitamin D3 supplementation (50,000 IU) or an active comparator (5,000 IU) for 6 months. Assessments of vitamin D, 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25 (OH) D], and depression were measured at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. Results. A total of 129 women were randomized, from which 119 completed the study (57 in lower dose and 62 in higher dose). Participants had an average 25 (OH) D and HbA1c of 20.8 ng/mL and 7.8%, respectively, at baseline. They were diverse (48% Black) and had a mean age of 50 and T2D for about 8 years. Upon completion of vitamin D3 supplementation, serum 25 (OH) D levels increased with 50,000 IU (+34 ng/mL) and 5,000 IU (+10 ng/mL). There was no difference in CES-D scores by treatment dose. Overall, depressive symptoms significantly improved over time with an average CES-D decline of 12.98 points (95% CI: −15.04 to −10.93; ). Among women with moderate baseline depressive symptoms, those receiving the lower dose had nominally lower depression scores at follow-up than those in the higher dose cohort. Among women with severe baseline depressive symptoms, the improvement in follow-up depression scores was the same regardless of dose. Conclusions. There was no difference in the dosing effect of vitamin D3 supplementation for the treatment of depressive symptoms in women with T2D who present with significant symptoms and low vitamin D. Regardless of the dose, participants’ mood improved over time. Further study of vitamin D to target depressive symptoms in comorbid populations is needed

Foreword: Assisted Reproductive Technology and the Law

This foreword introduces Issue 2: Assisted Reproductive Technology and the Law of the 35th Volume of the William Mitchell Law Review. It begins by outlining the author\u27s personal experience with ART, and contrasts her reasoning for using ART with the traditional need for ART. Finally, it lists some of the many legal questions yet to be conclusively answered