<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
<front>
<journal-meta>
<journal-id>2007-4387</journal-id>
<journal-title><![CDATA[Problema anuario de filosofía y teoría del derecho]]></journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title><![CDATA[Probl. anu. filos. teor. derecho]]></abbrev-journal-title>
<issn>2007-4387</issn>
<publisher>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas]]></publisher-name>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
<article-id>S2007-43872017000100085</article-id>
<title-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Reading Deboer and Obergefell through the &#8220;Moral Readings Versus Originalisms&#8221;. Debate: from Constitutional &#8220;Empty Cupboards&#8221; to Evolving Understandings]]></article-title>
<article-title xml:lang="es"><![CDATA[Leer Deboer y Obergefell a través del debate entre &#8220;lecturas morales versus originalismos&#8221;: de los cajones vacíos a los entendimientos evolutivos]]></article-title>
</title-group>
<contrib-group>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[McClain]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Linda C.]]></given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="Aff"/>
</contrib>
</contrib-group>
<aff id="Af1">
<institution><![CDATA[,Princeton University  ]]></institution>
<addr-line><![CDATA[ ]]></addr-line>
<country>USA</country>
</aff>
<pub-date pub-type="pub">
<day>00</day>
<month>12</month>
<year>2017</year>
</pub-date>
<pub-date pub-type="epub">
<day>00</day>
<month>12</month>
<year>2017</year>
</pub-date>
<numero>11</numero>
<fpage>85</fpage>
<lpage>129</lpage>
<copyright-statement/>
<copyright-year/>
<self-uri xlink:href="http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&amp;pid=S2007-43872017000100085&amp;lng=en&amp;nrm=iso"></self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&amp;pid=S2007-43872017000100085&amp;lng=en&amp;nrm=iso"></self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_pdf&amp;pid=S2007-43872017000100085&amp;lng=en&amp;nrm=iso"></self-uri><abstract abstract-type="short" xml:lang="en"><p><![CDATA[Abstract: This essay assesses the debate over &#8220;moral reading&#8221; and &#8220;originalist&#8221; approaches to constitutional interpretation, as elaborated in James E. Fleming, Fidelity to Our Imperfect Constitution: For Moral Readings and Against Originalism (2015), by evaluating the recent, momentous constitutional controversy in the United Sates of America over access by same-sex couples to civil marriage. Justice Kennedy&#8217;s landmark majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), which held that such couples have a fundamental right to marry, employed a &#8220;moral reading&#8221; in emphasizing evolving understandings of constitutional guarantees of equality, the &#8220;promise of liberty&#8221; and the institution of marriage. By contrast to the dissenters, the majority rejected a static, narrow reading of the fundamental right to marry &#8212;and marriage&#8212; and stressed the role &#8220;insight&#8221; and generational progress. Evolving understanding played a similar role in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (2013), which provided a template for Kennedy&#8217;s rejection of a narrow originalism focused only on historical practices or original intent. Such moral readings of the Constitution have played a significant role in making the Fourteenth Amendment less of (in Justice Ginsburg&#8217;s words) an &#8220;empty cupboard&#8221; for gay men and lesbians, just as they have played a role in making it less empty in the context of sex equality. This essay demonstrates how the contrasting approaches to interpretation in the majority and dissenting opinions in DeBoer v. Snyder (reversed by Obergefell) previewed the interpretive battle between the Obergefell majority and dissents, but with the sides reversed. It then observes that, while some legal scholars offered, in amicus briefs filed in Obergefell, originalist arguments for same-sex marriage, such arguments persuaded neither other originalist scholars nor the Obergefell dissenters.]]></p></abstract>
<abstract abstract-type="short" xml:lang="es"><p><![CDATA[Resumen: Este ensayo examina el debate sobre las aproximaciones de la &#8220;lectura moral&#8221; y &#8220;originalista&#8221; a la interpretación constitucional, tal y como fue caracterizado por James E. Fleming en Fidelity to Our Imperfect Constitution: For Moral Readings and Against Originalism (2015), al evaluar la reciente y trascendente controversia constitucional en los Estados Unidos de América acerca del acceso de las parejas de un mismo sexo al matrimonio civil. El ministro Kennedy en la histórica decisión de la mayoría en Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), la cual afirmó que tales parejas tienen un derecho fundamental para contraer matrimonio, empleó una &#8220;lectura moral&#8221; para enfatizar los entendimientos evolutivos de las garantías constitucionales de igualdad, la &#8220;promesa de la libertad&#8221;, y la institución del matrimonio. En contraste con la minoría, la mayoría rechazó una lectura estática y estrecha del derecho fundamental a casarse &#8212;o a contraer matrimonio&#8212; y el rol de la &#8220;perspectiva&#8221; y del progreso generacional. El entendimiento evolutivo jugó un papel similar en Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (2013), la cual proporcionó una base para el rechazo de Kennedy al originalismo estrecho enfocado solamente en las prácticas históricas o la intención original. Tales lecturas morales de la Constitución han jugado un papel significativo en la confección de la enmienda décimocuarta (en palabras de la ministra Ginsburg) para que cada vez sea menos &#8220;un cajón vacío&#8221; para gays y lesbianas; asimismo, ha jugado un papel en hacerlo menos vacío en el contexto de la igualdad de género. Este ensayo demuestra cómo el contraste de las aproximaciones de las opiniones mayoritaria y minoritaria en DeBoer v. Snyder (revertida por Obergefell) adelantaron la batalla interpretativa en Obergefell entre la mayoría y la minoría, pero con los lados invertidos. Entonces, observa que, en tanto que algunos juristas ofrecieron, en los amicus presentados en Obergefell, argumentos originalistas a favor del matrimonio de personas del mismo sexo, esos argumentos no persuadieron a ningún académico originalista ni a la minoría en Obergefell.]]></p></abstract>
<kwd-group>
<kwd lng="es"><![CDATA[Interpretación constitucional]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="es"><![CDATA[debido proceso]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="es"><![CDATA[igual protección]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="es"><![CDATA[enmienda décimocuarta]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="es"><![CDATA[derechos LGBT]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="es"><![CDATA[matrimonio]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="es"><![CDATA[lectura moral]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="es"><![CDATA[Obergefell v. Hodges]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="es"><![CDATA[significado original]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="es"><![CDATA[entendimiento original]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="es"><![CDATA[matrimonio de personas del mismo sexo]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="es"><![CDATA[igualdad sexual]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[Constitutional interpretation]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[due process]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[equal protection]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[fourteenth amendment]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[LGBT rights]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[marriage]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[moral reading]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[Obergefell V. Hodges]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[original meaning]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[original understanding]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[same-sex marriage]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[sex equality]]></kwd>
</kwd-group>
</article-meta>
</front><back>
<ref-list>
<ref id="B1">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Baude]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[W]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Is Originalism Our Law?]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Colum. L. Rev.]]></source>
<year>2015</year>
<numero>115</numero>
<issue>115</issue>
<page-range>2349-83</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B2">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Calabresi]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[SG]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Rickert]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[JT]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Originalism and Sex Discrimination]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Tex. L. Rev.]]></source>
<year>2011</year>
<numero>90</numero>
<issue>90</issue>
<page-range>1-46</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B3">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Carpenter]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[D]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Inverted Equal Protection: jkSame-Sex Marriage at the Sixth Circuit (Part 1, Originalism)]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[The Volokh Conspiracy]]></source>
<year>2014</year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B4">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Case]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[MA]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[The Ladies? Forget About Them. A Feminist Perspective on the Limits of Originalism]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Const. Comm.]]></source>
<year>2014</year>
<numero>29</numero>
<issue>29</issue>
<page-range>431</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B5">
<nlm-citation citation-type="book">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Cott]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[NF]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation]]></source>
<year>1999</year>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[Harvard University Press]]></publisher-name>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B6">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Cott]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[NF]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Which History in Obergefell v. Hodges?]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Perspectives on History]]></source>
<year>2015</year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B7">
<nlm-citation citation-type="">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Estrich]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[SR]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Sullivan]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[KM]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Abortion Politics: Writing for an Audience of One]]></source>
<year>1989</year>
<page-range>138</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B8">
<nlm-citation citation-type="book">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Fleming]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[JE]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[McClain]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[LC]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues]]></source>
<year>2013</year>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[Harvard University Press]]></publisher-name>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B9">
<nlm-citation citation-type="book">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Fleming]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[JE]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[McClain]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[LC]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Fidelity to Our Imperfect Constitution: For Moral Readings and Against Originalisms]]></source>
<year>2015</year>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[Oxford University Press]]></publisher-name>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B10">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Ginsburg]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[RB]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Sexual Equality Under the Fourteenth and Equal Rights Amendments]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Wash. U. L. Q.]]></source>
<year>1979</year>
<numero>161</numero>
<issue>161</issue>
<page-range>164</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B11">
<nlm-citation citation-type="book">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Hartog]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[H]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Man and Wife in America: A History]]></source>
<year>2000</year>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[Harvard University Press]]></publisher-name>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B12">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Hasday]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[JE]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Women&#8217;s Exclusion from the Constitutional Canon]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[U. Ill. L. Rev.]]></source>
<year>2013</year>
<page-range>1715</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B13">
<nlm-citation citation-type="book">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Wilson]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[JQ]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[The Marriage Problem]]></source>
<year>2002</year>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[HarperCollins]]></publisher-name>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B14">
<nlm-citation citation-type="book">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Kerber]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[L]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Women of the Republic]]></source>
<year>1980</year>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[Institute of Early American History and Culture University of North Carolina]]></publisher-name>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B15">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Koppleman]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Why Discrimination Against Lesbians and Gay Men is Sex Discrimination]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[N.Y.U. L. Rev.]]></source>
<year>1994</year>
<numero>69</numero>
<issue>69</issue>
<page-range>197</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B16">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Liptak]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Want to Be the Court&#8217;s Friend? It&#8217;s a Lot of Work]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[N.Y. Times]]></source>
<year>2016</year>
<publisher-loc><![CDATA[New York ]]></publisher-loc>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B17">
<nlm-citation citation-type="">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[McClain]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[LC]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[James Q. Wilsons&#8217;s-and Society&#8217;s-Marriage Problem]]></source>
<year>2014</year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B18">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[McClain]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[LC]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Love, Marriage, and the Baby Carriage: Revisiting the Channelling Function of Family Law]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Cardozo L. Rev.]]></source>
<year>2007</year>
<numero>28</numero>
<issue>28</issue>
<page-range>2133</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B19">
<nlm-citation citation-type="book">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[McClain]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[LC]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[The Place of Families: Fostering Capacity, Equality, and Responsibility]]></source>
<year>2006</year>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[Harvard University Press]]></publisher-name>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B20">
<nlm-citation citation-type="book">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Pascoe]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[P]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[What Comes Naturally]]></source>
<year>2009</year>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[Oxford University Press]]></publisher-name>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B21">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Siegel]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[R]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[She the People: The Nineteenth Amendment, Sex Equality, Federalism, and the Family]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Harv. L. Rev.]]></source>
<year>2001</year>
<numero>115</numero>
<issue>115</issue>
<page-range>947</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B22">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Solum]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[L]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[What Should Count as an Originalist Case for a Right to Same Sex Marriage]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Legal Theory Blog]]></source>
<year>2015</year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B23">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Somin]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[I]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[How to Figure Out When Laws Banning Same-Sex Marriage Became Unconstitutional, and Why the Precise Date May Not Matter]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Volokh Conspiracy]]></source>
<year>2013</year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B24">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Somin]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[I]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[William Eskridge on Originalism and Same-Sex Marriage]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Volokh Conspiracy]]></source>
<year>2015</year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B25">
<nlm-citation citation-type="">
<source><![CDATA[505 U.S. 833, 844, 847]]></source>
<year>1992</year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B26">
<nlm-citation citation-type="">
<source><![CDATA[539 U.S. 558, 562]]></source>
<year>2003</year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B27">
<nlm-citation citation-type="">
<source><![CDATA[DeBoer v. Snyder, 772 F. 3d 388]]></source>
<year>2014</year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B28">
<nlm-citation citation-type="">
<source><![CDATA[Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584]]></source>
<year>2015</year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B29">
<nlm-citation citation-type="">
<source><![CDATA[United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 2694]]></source>
<year>2013</year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B30">
<nlm-citation citation-type="">
<source><![CDATA[United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 2691]]></source>
<year>2013</year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
</ref-list>
</back>
</article>
