Abstract and Keywords
This article contends that the modest contributions of comparative law acquire enhanced force when the claims made by constitutional interpreters are themselves immodest. In the context of sexual orientation, constitutional arguments often assume a categorical, ‘always/everywhere’ tenor that exposes them to contestation on comparative grounds. It develops this claim by focusing on three issues: bans on lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals from military service; the criminalization of same-sex sexual conduct; and relationship recognition for same-sex couples. The analysis uses US constitutional law as the primary point of departure.
Oxford Handbooks Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of titles within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view restricted versions of this content, plus any full text content that is freely available.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.
To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs, and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .