Must a state in which gay marriage is not legal recognize such a marriage performed in another state? The Constitution does not require recognition in all cases, but it does forbid states from nullifying family relationships based in other states, or from making themselves havens for people who are trying to escape obligations to their spouses and children. In this book, Andrew Koppelman offers workable legal solutions to the problems that arise when gay couples cross state borders. Drawing on historical precedents in which states held radically different moral views about marriage (for example, between kin, very young individuals, and interracial couples), Koppelman shows which state laws should govern in specific situations as gay couples travel or move from place to place.
Americans are profoundly divided over same-sex marriage, and now that gay civil unions and marriages are legal in some states, the issue has become increasingly urgent. Koppelman offers a sensible approach that will appeal to the best instincts of both sides.

Should the Boy Scouts of America and other noncommercial associations have a right to discriminate when selecting their members?Does the state have a legitimate interest in regulating the membership practices of private associations? These questions-- raised by "Boy Scouts of America v. Dale," in which the Supreme Court ruled that the Scouts had a right to expel gay members-- are at the core of this provocative book, an in-depth exploration of the tension between freedom of association and antidiscrimination law. The book demonstrates that the "right" to discriminate has a long and unpleasant history. Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Wolff bring together legal history, constitutional theory, and political philosophy to analyze how the law ought to deal with discriminatory private organizations.

Should religious people who conscientiously object to facilitating same-sex weddings, and who therefore decline to provide cakes, photography, or other services, be exempted from antidiscrimination laws? This issue has taken on an importance far beyond the tiny number who have made such claims. Gay rights advocates fear that exempting even a few religious dissenters would unleash a devastating wave of discrimination. Conservative Christians fear that the law will treat them like racists and drive them to the margins of American society. Both sides are mistaken. The answer lies, not in abstract principles, but in legislative compromise. This book clearly and empathetically engages with both sides of the debate. Koppelman explains the basis of antidiscrimination law, including the complex idea of dignitary harm. He shows why even those who do not regard religion as important or valid nonetheless have good reasons to support religious liberty, and why even those who regard religion as a value of overriding importance should nonetheless reject the extravagant power over nonbelievers that the Supreme Court has recently embraced. Koppelman also proposes a specific solution to the problem: that religious exemptions be granted only to the few businesses that are willing to announce their compunctions and bear the costs of doing so. His approach makes room for America's enormous variety of deeply held beliefs and ways of life. It can help reduce the toxic polarization of American politics.

The legal challenge to the Affordable Care Act, and the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the law, is quite possibly the most momentous Supreme Court case on the issue of federal power in our era. Yet, despite the Court's ruling, the issue of health care reform is still an incredibly divisive issue. For the left, the federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce, and the health insurance industry surely falls under the definition of interstate commerce. For conservatives, the individual mandate is the core of the plan, and it represents an egregious erosion of individual rights and liberties. Andrew Koppelman, a leading constitutional scholar and an expert on the issue, thinks that the constitutional arguments against it are spurious, and in The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform, explains why. After walking readers through the 125-year modern history of Supreme Court cases dealing with the regulation of commerce, Koppelman tackles the arguments for and against the law. He contends that the New Deal established that that federal government had broad power over interstate commerce. If most commerce in a modern, complex economy like the US amounts to interstate commerce-as case law currently holds-then surely health care, which constitutes one sixth of the economy and is dominated by an insurance industry that crosses state lines, is interstate commerce too. Koppelman's book closes with an analysis of the final decision. The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform is an authoritative account of the issue-one that not only carries great implications for the upcoming presidential election, but which also serves as a definitive analysis for years to come.

This important book addresses head-on the controversy over attempts to reshape society in the name of antidiscrimination. While most Americans understand that racism and similar ideologies are so destructive that the state should do what it can to eradicate them, this understanding conflicts with another widely held idea, that the shaping of citizens' beliefs is not a legitimate objective of a liberal state. Andrew Koppelman argues that the modern conception of antidiscrimination law as a project of cultural transformation is consistent with, and even demanded by, principles of liberty. He clarifies the moral principles that should guide a society in which some groups, such as blacks, women, and homosexuals, are unfairly stigmatized. Koppelman surveys leading accounts of the evil that antidiscrimination law seeks to remedy, analyzing works by such theorists as Ronald Dworkin, John Hart Ely, Kenneth Karst, Owen Fiss, Alan Freeman, Catharine MacKinnon, and Iris Marion Young. He shows that, while each points to a valuable moral aspiration, none of these aspirations can be realized without cultural transformation, because the central evil that antidiscrimination law seeks to remedy is unjust social devaluation. Koppelman takes up objections from liberal theory, focusing on the works of Robert Nozick, John Rawls, and Bruce Ackerman, and he concludes that liberal principles themselves condemn the corrupting and degrading effects of prejudice and forbid official indifference to those effects. In a final chapter, he addresses the question whether the law should contribute to the transformation of culture by penalizing hate speech and pornography.

Although it is often charged with hostility toward religion, First Amendment doctrine in fact treats religion as a distinctive human good. It insists, however, that this good be understood abstractly, without the state taking sides on any theological question. Here, a leading scholar of constitutional law explains the logic of this uniquely American form of neutrality more religion-centered than liberal theorists propose, and less overtly theistic than conservatives advocate.

The First Amendment s guarantee of freedom of religion is under threat. Growing numbers of critics, including a near-majority of the Supreme Court, seem ready to cast aside the ideal of American religious neutrality. Andrew Koppelman defends that ideal and explains why protecting religion from political manipulation is imperative in an America of growing religious diversity.

Understanding American religious neutrality, Koppelman shows, can explain some familiar puzzles. How can Bible reading in public schools be impermissible while legislative sessions begin with prayers, Christmas is an official holiday, and the words under God appear in the Pledge of Allegiance? Are faith-based social services, public financing of religious schools, or the teaching of intelligent design constitutional? Combining legal, historical, and philosophical analysis, Koppelman shows how law coherently navigates these conundrums. He explains why laws must have a secular legislative purpose, why old, but not new, ceremonial acknowledgments of religion are permitted, and why it is fair to give religion special treatment."

The gay rights question is whether the second-class legal status of gay people should be changed. In this book Andrew Koppelman shows the powerful legal and moral case for gay equality, but argues that courts cannot and should not impose it.
"The Gay Rights Question in Contemporary American Law" offers an unusually nuanced analysis of the most pressing gay rights issues. Does antigay discrimination violate the Constitution? Is there any sound moral objection to homosexual conduct? Are such objections the moral and constitutional equivalent of racism? Must state laws recognizing same-sex unions be given effect in other states? Should courts take account of popular resistance to gay equality? Koppelman sheds new light on all these questions. Sure to upset purists on either side of the debate, Koppelman's book criticizes the legal arguments advanced both for and against gay rights. Just as important, it places these arguments in broader moral and social contexts, offering original, pragmatic, and workable legal solutions.