![handle is hein.journals/rjlr5 and id is 1 raw text is: American Family Association v. City and County of San Francisco: Constitutional
Government Responses to the Harms of Religious Speech Advancing Anti-Homosexual
Messages
By: Marie Saraceni*
[1] The need to eradicate violence against homosexuals in America is a concern of
paramount importance-one as compelling as protecting the First Amendment freedoms of
individuals who wish to advocate religious viewpoints against homosexuality. Particularly in a
legal and political culture wherein homosexuals are afforded limited constitutional protection,'
the modern debate regarding the constitutionality of laws regulating hate speech2 demands a re-
visitation of the meaning of First Amendment freedoms. These freedoms are crucial within the
* J.D. Candidate, Rutgers University School of Law - Camden, May 2004, Lead Notes Editor
for the Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion. I dedicate this Note, with love, to my sister,
Christine, for all the encouragement and inspiration she has given me throughout the years.
1 See, e.g., R.A.V. v. City of Paul, Minn., 505 U.S. 377 (1992) (finding ordinance that prohibits
hateful expressive activity against individuals on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, or
gender, while permitting other sorts of harassing activity, facially invalid under the First
Amendment because it constituted unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination); Romer v. Evans,
517 U.S. 620 (1996) (holding that homosexuals' right to equal protection under the law is subject
only to rational basis scrutiny); Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640, 696 (2000)
(Stevens, J., dissenting) (stating of the majority's holding that forced membership of a
homosexual in an organization promulgating anti-homosexual values would infringe upon the
organization's right of expressive association under the First Amendment: Under the majority's
reasoning, an openly gay male is irreversibly affixed with the label 'homosexual.' That label,
even though unseen, communicates a message that permits his exclusion wherever he goes. His
openness is the sole and sufficient justification for his ostracism. Though unintended, reliance
on such a justification is tantamount to a constitutionally prescribed symbol of inferiority.)
Nevertheless, the constitutional tides have begun to change significantly. See Lawrence v.
Texas, 123 S. Ct. 2472 (2003), the recent landmark United States Supreme Court decision
recognizing that homosexuals have a substantive due process right to engage in consensual
sexual activity in the home, free from government intervention or intrusion.
2 By hate speech, I specifically refer to any kind of speech characterized by anti-homosexual
animus, although the term certainly encompasses expressed animus directed toward other
targeted groups of individuals as well.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/rjlr5&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most