¹ For a discussion of some aspects of transnational law, see Massimo Fichera, Law, Community & Ultima Ratio in Transnational Law, in Polity and Crisis—Reflections on the European Odyssey 189 (Massimo Fichera, Sakari Hänninen & Kaarlo Tuori eds., 2014).Google Scholar

² By “liberal paradigm” I mean the paradigm that asserts, inter alia, the priority of individual claims and rights, limited government, rule of law, impartial role of the judiciary, etc. Its historical and cultural evolution, however, is very diversified. See e.g., John Gray, Two Faces of Liberalism (2000).Google Scholar

³ See e.g., Asbi&rn Sonne N&rgaard, Rediscovering Reasonable Rationality in Institutional Analysis, 29 Eur. J. of Pol. Res. 31 (1996); James G. March & Johan P. Olsen, The Institutional Dynamics of International Political Orders, 52 Int'l Org. 943 (1998).Google Scholar

⁴ Lorenz, Astrid, Explaining Constitutional Change: Comparing the Logic, Advantages and Shortcomings of Static and Dynamic Approaches, in New Constitutionalism in Latin America: Promises and Practices (Detlef Nolte & Almut Schilling-Vacaflor eds., 2012).Google Scholar

⁵ Id. at 31.Google Scholar

⁶ Id. at 38–42.Google Scholar

⁷ See Haas, Peter M. & Haas, Ernst B., Pragmatic Constructivism and the Study of International Institutions, 31 Millennium 573 (2002); Jeffrey Checkel, The Constructivist Turn in International Relations Theory, 50 World Pol. 324 (1998) (providing a different version of constructivism).Google Scholar

⁸ For a distinction between sociological, historical, and rational choice institutionalism see Peter Hall & Rosemary C. R. Taylor, Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms, 44 Pol. Stud. 936 (1996). The literature on institutionalism is very large, however, and many more versions can be distinguished.Google Scholar

⁹ See generally Stacey, Jeffrey & Rittberger, Berthold, Dynamics of Formal and Informal Institutional Change in the EU, 10 J. of Eur. Pub. Pol'y 858 (2003).Google Scholar

¹⁰ See Bourdieu, Pierre, In Other Words: Essays Towards a Reflexive Sociology (1990).Google Scholar

¹¹ See Cleaver, Francis & Koning, Jessica de, Furthering Critical Institutionalism, 9 Int'l J. of the Commons 1 (2015).Google Scholar

¹² See Koning, Jessica de, Unpredictable Outcomes in Forestry—Governance Institutions in Practice, 27 Soc'y & Nat. Resources 358 (2014).Google Scholar

¹³ See Bell, Duncan, What is Liberalism?, 42 Pol. Theory 682, 682 (2014).Google Scholar

¹⁴ The Netherlands (2001), Spain (2005), Portugal (2010), France (2013), Belgium (2003), Luxembourg (2014), Denmark (2012), Sweden (2009), the United Kingdom (2014), Ireland (2015), and Finland (2015) (EU) as well as Norway (2009) and Iceland (2010). In Slovenia a bill legalizing same-sex marriage was passed in 2015, but needs to be confirmed by a referendum. See International Laws: Europe, Marriage Equal. USA (July 10, 2015), http://www.marriageequality.org/international_laws_europe.Google Scholar

¹⁵ E.g., Germany (2001, registered life partnership), Croatia (2014, life partnership), Estonia (2016, cohabitation agreement), Austria (2010, registered partnership), Hungary (2009, registered partnership), Slovenia and Czech Republic (2006, registered partnership), Italy (2016. civil unions). See supra note 14.Google Scholar

¹⁶ See e.g., Const. of the Republic of Poland art. 18, http://www.sejm.gov.pl/prawo/konst/angielski/kon1.htm.Google Scholar

¹⁷ See Same-Sex Marriage Legalized in Amsterdam, CNN.com (Apr. 1, 2001), http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0104/01/sm.10.html.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Resolution on Equal Rights for Homosexuals & Lesbians in the European Community, Eur. Parl. 1994 O.J. (C 61) (which was in favor of access to marriage or equivalent legal framework); Resolution on Equal Rights for Gays and Lesbians in the European Community, Eur. Parl. 1998 O.J. (C 313).Google Scholar

¹⁹ See e.g., Recommendation on the Future of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, Eur. Parl. 2005 O.J. (C 166).Google Scholar

²⁰ Case C-507/12, Saint Prix v. Sec'y of State for Work & Pensions, 2014 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-507/12&language=EN; See Nicole Busby, Crumbs of Comfort: Pregnancy and the Status of Worker under EU Law's Free Movement Provisions, 44 Indus. L.J. 134 (2015).Google Scholar

²¹ Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Measures Facilitating the Exercise of Rights Conferred on Workers in the Context of Freedom of Movement for Workers, COM (2013) 236 final.Google Scholar

²² Report of the European Parliament on the Proposal for a Directive on Measures Facilitating the Exercise of Rights Conferred on Workers in the Context of Freedom of Movement for Workers, A7-0386/2013, 8.Google Scholar

²³ Leigh, Vanessa et al., Justice, Freedom and Security, Towards an EU Roadmap for Equality on Grounds of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity 462, 482 (2012).Google Scholar

²⁴ See Busby, , supra note 20, at 138–40; see generally Case C-507/12, Saint Prix, 2014 E.C.R. ECLI:EU:C:2014:2007 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-507/12&language=EN.Google Scholar

²⁵ Eur. Convention on Human Rights art. 12, Nov. 4, 1950 (stating, “men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right”).Google Scholar

²⁶ W. B. v. Germany, App. No. 104/55 (Dec. 17, 1955), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/ (judging application inadmissible).Google Scholar

²⁷ X v. Germany, App. No. 5935/72, para. 56 (Sept. 30, 1975), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/ (judging application inadmissible).Google Scholar

²⁸ Dudgeon v. United Kingdom, Series A No. 45 Eur. Ct. H.R., para 45 (1981).Google Scholar

²⁹ See e.g., X & Y v. United Kingdom, App. No. 9369/83, 32 Eur. Comm'n H.R. Dec. & Rep. 220 (1983); W. J. & D. P. v. United Kingdom, App. No. 12513/86, 11 Eur. H.R. Rep. 49 (1987); C. & L. M. v. United Kingdom, App. No. 14753/89 (Oct. 9, 1989), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/.Google Scholar

³⁰ X & Y, App. No. 9369/83.Google Scholar

³¹ S. v. United Kingdom, App. No. 11716/85, 47 Eur. Comm'n H.R. Dev. & Rep. 274 (1986).Google Scholar

³² Id. at para. 7.Google Scholar

³³ Estevez v. Spain, 2001 VI Eur. Ct. H.R. 311.Google Scholar

³⁴ Id. Google Scholar

³⁵ Karner v. Austria, 2003 IX Eur. Ct. H.R., 38; Kozak v. Poland, App. No. 13102/02 (Mar. 2, 2010), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/.Google Scholar

³⁶ Rees v. United Kingdom, Series A No. 106 Eur. Ct. H.R., para. 49 (1986).Google Scholar

³⁷ See Cossey v. United Kingdom, Series A No. 184 Eur. Ct. H.R., para. 46 (1990); see also Sheffield & Horsham v. United Kingdom, 1998 V Eur. Ct. H.R.Google Scholar

³⁸ Goodwin v. United Kingdom, App. No. 28957/95, para. 98 (July 11, 2002), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/.Google Scholar

³⁹ Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Mar. 30, 2010 O.J. (C 83/02); Goodwin, App. No. 28957/95 at para. 100.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ See Goodwin, App. No. 28957/95 at para. 102.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Id. at para. 85.Google Scholar

⁴² See Schalk & Kopf v. Austria, App. No. 30141/04, (June 24, 2010), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-99605.Google Scholar

⁴³ On the doctrine of the margin of appreciation, and related criticism, see Yuval Shany, Towards a General Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in International Law?, 16 Eur. J. Int‘l Law 907 (2006); Eyal Benvenisti, Margin of Appreciation, Consensus & Universal Standards, 31 N.Y.U.J. of Int‘l Law & Pol. 843 (1999).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ See Schalk, App. No. 30141/04 at paras. 60–64.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ See Karner, , 2003 IX Eur. Ct. H.R. at 37.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ See Schalk, App. No. 30141/04 at paras. 93–95.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ See Schalk, App. No. 30141/04 at paras. 109–110.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Gas et Dubois v. France, 2012 II Eur. Ct. H.R. 245, para. 66; X & Others v. Austria, 2013 II Eur. Ct. H.R. 73, para. 106.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Greece, Vallianatos v., 2013 VI Eur. Ct. H.R. 163, para. 73.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Id. at paras. 77, 92.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Id. at para. 81.Google Scholar

⁵² Id. at para. 84.Google Scholar

⁵³ See App. No. 37359/09, (July 16, 2014), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-145768.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ See id. at para. 39–40.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ See id. at paras. 14, 15, 41, 42.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Id. at para. 75.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Schalk, App. No. 30141/04.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Id. at para. 87. As pointed out earlier, Finland recognized same-sex marriage in 2015.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ See McDonald, Henry, Ireland Becomes First Country to Legalize Gay Marriage by Popular Vote, The Guardian, May 23, 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/23/gay-marriage-ireland-yes-vote (following a referendum in which an overwhelming 62% of people voted in favor of gay marriage).Google Scholar

⁶⁰ See Oliari & Others v. Italy, App. Nos. 18766/11 and 36030/11, para. 185 (July 21, 2015), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-156265.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Id. at para. 177.Google Scholar

⁶² Id. at para. 181.Google Scholar

⁶³ Povoledo, Elisabetta, Italy Approves Same-Sex Civil Unions, N.Y. Times (May 11, 2016), http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/12/world/europe/italy-gay-same-sex-unions.html?_r=0. Italy was the last Western European country to introduce legislation which officially recognizes homosexual relationships.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Art. 2 Costituzione [Cost.] (It).Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Corte Cost. (Constitutional Court), 14 April 2010, Decision 138/2010 Foro it. I (It.).Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Oliari a.o., Eur. Ct. H. R. App. nos. 18766/11 and 36030/11 at para. 167.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Id. at para. 123.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Id. at para. 130. See also, as regards the possibility to register marriages concluded abroad, Nozze gay: Angelino Alfano contrario alla trascrizione dei registri nei Comuni: ‘I sindaci non lo possono fare‘, Huffington Post (Oct. 1, 2014), http://www.huffingtonpost.it/2014/10/01/nozze-gay-alfano-contrario-registrazione_n_5914116.html.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Id. at para. 173.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ See Wintermute, Robert, Marriage, Adoption, and Donor Insemination for Same-Sex Couples: Does European Case Law Impose Any Obligations on Italy?, 1 Genius 35, 39 (2014).Google Scholar

⁷¹ See Bribosia, Emmanuelle, Rorive, Isabelle & Laura Van den Eynde, Same-Sex Marriage—Building an Argument Before the European Court of Human Rights in Light of the US Experience, 32 Berkeley J. of Intl. L. 1, 41 (2014).Google Scholar

⁷² Id. Google Scholar

⁷³ Opinion of Advocate General Tesauro at para. 9, Case C.13/94, P. v. S. and Cornwall County Council (Dec. 14 1995), http://curia.europa.eu/juris/showPdf.jsf?text=&docid=99596&doclang=EN.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Case C-249/96, Grant v. South West Trains, 1998 ECR I-621, para. 47. The case concerned the refusal by a railway company to reduce the price of a train ticket to the homosexual partner of one of its employees.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Joined Cases C-122 and 125/99, D and Sweden v. Council, 2001 ECR I-4319.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Art. 13 Treaty on the European Union (TEC), now Art. 19 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).Google Scholar

⁷⁷ EC Directive 2000/78 of 27 November 2000, establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (the “Framework Directive”), OJ 2000 L 303.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Case C-267/06, Maruko v. Versorgungsanstalt der deutschen Bühnen, 2008 ECR I-1757.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Mulder, Jule, Some More Equal Than Others? Matrimonial Benefits and the CJEU's Case Law on Discrimination on the Grounds of Sexual Orientation 19 Maastricht J. Eur. & Comp. L. 505 (2012).Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Currently Art. 157 TFEU.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Case C-117/01, K. B., 2001 ECR I-541.Google Scholar

⁸² Case C-147/08, Römer v. Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg, 2011 ECR I-3591.Google Scholar

⁸³ Opinion of Advocate General Jääskinen para. 175, Case C-147/08, Römer v. Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg (July 15, 2011), http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62008CC0147.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ See id. at para. 131. See Laurent Pech, Between Judicial Minimalism and Avoidance: the Court of Justice's Sidestepping of Fundamental Constitutional Issues in Römer and Dominguez, 49 C.M.L.R. 1841 (2012).Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Case C-267/12, Frédéric Hay v. Crédit agricole mutuel de Charente-Maritime et des Deux-Sèvres, Judgment of 12 December 2013.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Id. at para. 36–37.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Id. at para. 44.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ The grounds enumerated in Art. 2 (5) Directive 2000/78/EC are: public security; the maintenance of public order; and the prevention of criminal offences, the protection of health, and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ This was made clear by the European Court of Justice (CJEU), e.g., in Römer.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Art. 21 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR). See also Alina Tryfonidou, EU Free Movement Law and the Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships: The Case for Mutual Recognition, 21 Columbia J. Eur. L. 195 (2015).Google Scholar

⁹¹ Wautelet, Patrick, Private International Law Aspects of Same-Sex Marriages and Partnerships in Europe—Divided We Stand?, in Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships in Europe 143 (Katharina Boele-Welki & Angelika Fuchs eds., 2012).Google Scholar

⁹² Art. 51(1) Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, OJ C 83/389, 30.3.2010. Other limits of the CJEU are discussed in Robert Wintemute, In Extending Human Rights, which European Court is Substantively ‘Braver’ and Procedurally ‘Fitter‘?, in Fundamental Rights in the EU – A Matter for Two Courts 179 (Sonia Morano-Foadi & Lucy Vickers, eds.,2015).Google Scholar

⁹³ Wintemute, Robert, supra note 92; Kees Waaldijk, Great Diversity and Some Equality: Non-Marital Legal Family Formats for Same-Sex Couples in Europe, 1 Genius 42 (2014).Google Scholar

⁹⁴ See, e.g., Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 210 (1888) (“[I]t [marriage] is the foundation of family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923) (stating that marriage is protected by the Due Process Clause); Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942) (describing how marriage is “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race”); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 11 (1967) (discussing how freedom to marry is necessary to pursue happiness).Google Scholar

⁹⁵ See Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632 (1974).Google Scholar

⁹⁶ See Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977).Google Scholar

⁹⁷ See Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978); Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Significant cases concerning gay rights were Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986); Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996); Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000); Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). But see Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972).Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Nelson, Baker v., 191 N.W.2d 185 (Minn. 1971). Neither the equal protection nor the due process clauses were said to be affected by the statute. Id. at 186. Moreover, Loving v. Virginia, applicable to discriminations on the basis of race, was not considered relevant.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ See Hallahan, Jones v., 501 S.W.2d 588 (Ky. 1973); In Re Estate of Cooper, 564 N.Y.S.2d 684 (Fam. Ct. 1990); see also Singer v. Hara, 522 P.2d 1187 (Wash. Ct. App. 1974); Adams v. Howerton, 673 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 458 U.S. 1111; De Santo v. Barnsley, 476 A.2d 952 (Pa. Sup. Ct. 1984).Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ See Lewin, Baher v., 852 P.2d 44 (Haw. 1993).Google Scholar

¹⁰² See Miike, Baher v., 950 P.2d 1234 (Haw. 1997).Google Scholar

¹⁰³ See Brause v. Bureau of Vital Statistics, 1998 WL 88743 (Al. 1998).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ See Vermont, Baker v., 744 A.2d 864 (Vt. 1999).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941, 969 (Mass. 2003).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Id. at 948–59. In the US, the analysis of equal protection and due process is normally done by distinguishing between strict, or heightened, intermediate and rational-basis scrutiny. In the first case, a classification will qualify as “suspect” (as in the areas of race, alienage, gender, age) if it is not supported by a compelling government interest by way of legislation, which results as the least restrictive means to achieve the declared purpose. In the second case, a classification will be “quasi-suspect” if it is not justified by an important interest that is substantially related to the classification. In the third case, it is merely required that state action be rationally linked to a legitimate government interest.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Id. at 961–62.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Id. at 962–63.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Id. at 964.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ See Brien, Varnum v., 763 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 2009).Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Id. at 898–903.Google Scholar

¹¹² Kerrigan v. Comm'r of Pub. Health, 957 A.2d 407, 476 (2008).Google Scholar

¹¹³ Id. at 476 and 479.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Schwarzenegger, Perry v., 704 F. Supp. 2d 921, 997 (N.D. Cal. 2010).Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ Id. at 999.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ Id. at 1002–03.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ Nelson, Baker v., 409 U.S. 810, 810 (Minn. 1972).Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ See Developments in the Law: The Constitution and the Family, 93 Harv. L. Rev. 1156, 1274 (1980).Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ See United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013).Google Scholar

¹²⁰ See Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652 (2013).Google Scholar

¹²¹ Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2695–96.Google Scholar

¹²² Id. at 20.Google Scholar

¹²³ See Herbert, Kitchen v., 2013 WL 6697874 (D. Utah, Dec. 23, 2013).Google Scholar

¹²⁴ Id. at 20.Google Scholar

¹²⁵ See Holder, Bishop v., 962 F. Supp. 2d 1252 (N.D. Okla. 2014); Bostic v. Rainey, 970 F. Supp. 2d 456 (E.D. Va. 2014); De Leon v. Perry, 975 F. Supp. 2d 632 (W. D. Tex. 2014).Google Scholar

¹²⁶ Hodges, Obergefell v., 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015).Google Scholar

¹²⁷ Id. at 2591.Google Scholar

¹²⁸ Id. Google Scholar

¹²⁹ Id. at 2593–94.Google Scholar

¹³⁰ See e.g. Baker, 191 N.W.2d at 187. Neither the equal protection nor the due process clause were said to be affected by the statute: Goodridge v. Dep't of Pub. Health, 798 N.E.2d 941, 969 (Mass. 2003); Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 2009); Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921, 997 (N.D. Cal. 2010); United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013).Google Scholar

¹³¹ See Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2679.Google Scholar

¹³² Joyce, Adam, The Micropolitics of Change in the Battle Over Gay Marriage (APSA 2013 Annual Meeting Paper, 2013).Google Scholar

¹³³ See Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (dissenting opinion of Justice Roberts, with whom Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas join).Google Scholar

¹³⁴ Id. at 2593–604.Google Scholar

¹³⁵ See Ingraham, Chrys, The Heterosexual Imaginary: Feminist Sociology and Theories of Gender, in Queer Theory/Soc. 168 (S. Seidman ed., 1996).Google Scholar

¹³⁶ See generally Beckert, Jens, Institutional Isomorphism Revisited: Convergence and Divergence in Institutional Change, 28 Soc. Theory 150 (2010).Google Scholar

¹³⁷ See Sweet, Alec Stone, A Europe of Rights—The Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems (Helen Keller eds., 2008).Google Scholar

¹³⁸ See Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, App. No. 30141/04 (June 24, 2010), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/.Google Scholar

¹³⁹ See Lewin, Baher v., 852 P.2d 44 (Haw. 1993).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ See Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675.Google Scholar

¹⁴¹ Powell, Walter W., Expanding the Scope of Institutional Analysis, in The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis 183, 194 (Walter W. Powell & Paul J. DiMaggio eds., 1991); see also DiMaggio & Powell, infra note 148 (discussing the concept of “isomorphism”).Google Scholar

¹⁴² E.g. PewResearchCenter: Religion & Public Life, www.pewforum.org (last visited June 8, 2016).Google Scholar

¹⁴³ Roberts, Andrew, Shifting Attitudes on Homosexuality, 61 Hist. Today 10 (2011).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁴ Cossman, Brenda, Migrating Marriages and Comparative Constitutionalism, in The Migration of Constitutional Ideas 209 (Sujit Choudry ed., 2006).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁵ For example, in Italy, recent polls suggest that support for civil partnerships has been increasing among voters of almost all parties represented in Parliament. See Unioni gay: Berlusconi apre alla proposta Renzi: La legge alla tedesca e' il giusto compromesso, La Stampa (Oct. 23, 2014); G. Dupont, L'adoption par les couples gays divise les Français, Le Monde (Nov. 7, 2012), http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2012/11/07/l-adoption-par-les-couples-gays-divise-les-francais_1786973_3224.html.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁶ Halliday, Simon & Schmidt, Patrick, Conducting Law and Society Research—Reflections on Methods and Practices (2009); Brian Z. Tamanaha, A General Jurisprudence of Law and Society (2001); Herbert H. Wilson, The Relationship of History to the Study and Practice of Law, Transactions and Reports 5 (1887).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁷ See e.g. Inglehart, Ronald F. & Baker, Wayne, Modernization, Cultural Change, and the Persistence of Traditional Values, 65 Am. Soc. Rev. 19, 40-42 (2000).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁸ See DiMaggio, Paul J. & Powell, Walter W., The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality, in The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis 63 (Paul J. DiMaggio & Walter W. Powell, eds., 1991).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁹ See e.g. Young, Claire & Boyd, Susan, Challenging Heteronormativity? Reaction and Resistance to the Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Partnerships in Reaction and Resistance—Feminism, Law and Social Change 262 (D.E. Chunn ed., 2007).Google Scholar

¹⁵⁰ See generally Rosser, Colin & Harris, Chris, The Family and Social Change—A Study of Family and Kinship in a South Wales Town (2003).Google Scholar

¹⁵¹ Jemolo, Carlo A., ‘La famiglia e il diritto,’ Annali della facoltá di Giurisprudenza dell'Universitá di Catania 57 (1948) (my translation). Original Italian: “La famiglia appare sempre … come un’ isola che il mare del diritto può lambire soltanto … la famiglia è la rocca sull'onda, ed il granito che costituisce la sua base appartiene al mondo degli affetti, agl'istinti primi, alla morale, alla religione, non al mondo del diritto.”Google Scholar

¹⁵² See Johnson, Paul, Challenging the Heteronormativity of Marriage: The Role of Judicial Interpretation and Authority, 20 Soc. and Legal Stud. 349 (2011). “Heteronormativity” is “the institutions, structures of understanding, and practical orientations that make heterosexuality seem not only coherent … but also privileged.” See Lauren Berlant & Michael Warner, Sex in Public, 24 Critical Inquiry 547 (1998).Google Scholar

¹⁵³ See Nussbaum, Martha, A Right to Marry, 98 Calif. L. Rev. 667, 688 (2010); Laurence H. Tribe, Lawrence v. Texas, The “Fundamental Right” That Dare Not Speak Its Name, 117 Harv. L. Rev. 1893 (2004); Laurence H. Tribe, The Constitutional Inevitability of Same-Sex Marriage, 71 Md. L. Rev. 471 (2012); Deborah Hellmann, Marriage Equality: A Question of Equality Rather Than Liberty, SCOTUSBlog (Aug. 26, 2011), www.scotusblog.com/2011/08/marriage-equality-a-question-of-equality-rather-than-liberty.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁴ See Waaldijk, Kees, Standard Sequences in the Legal Recognition of Homosexuality—Europe's Past, Present and Future, 4 Austl. Gay and Lesbian L. J. 50 (1994); Kees Waaldijk, Small Change: How the Road to Same-Sex Marriage Got Paved in the Netherlands, in Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Partnerships: A Study of National, European and International Law 437 (Robert Wintemute & Mads Adenas, eds., 2001) [hereinafter Waaldijk, Small Change]; Kees Waaldijk, Others May Follow: The Introduction of Marriage, Quasi-Marriage, and Semi-Marriage for Same-Sex Couples in European Countries, 38 New Eng. L. Rev. 569 (2004).Google Scholar

¹⁵⁵ Waaldijk, See, Small Change, supra note 154, at 439.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁶ Id. at 440–41.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁷ Merin, Yuval, Equality for Same-Sex Couples: The Legal Recognition of Gay Partnerships in Europe and the United States 324 (2002).Google Scholar

¹⁵⁸ Id. at 327.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁹ Id. at 333.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁰ See id. at 330; Waaldijk, Small Change, supra note 154, at 447.Google Scholar

¹⁶¹ Eskridge, William N., Comparative Law and the Same-Sex Marriage Debate: A Step-By-Step Approach Toward State Recognition, Yale L. Sch. Fac. Scholarship Series 641, 655 (2000).Google Scholar

¹⁶² Eskridge, William N., Equality Practice: Civil Unions and the Future of Gay Rights 115 (2002).Google Scholar

¹⁶³ See generally Inching Down the Aisle: Differing Paths Toward the Legalization of Same-Sex marriage in the United States and Europe, 116 Har. L. Rev. 2004 (2003).Google Scholar

¹⁶⁴ M.V. Lee Badgett, Predicting Partnership Rights: Applying the European Experience to the United States, 17 Yale J.L.& Feminism 71, 75 (2005).Google Scholar

¹⁶⁵ Id. Google Scholar

¹⁶⁶ Id. at 76–80.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁷ Aloni, Erez, Incrementalism, Civil Unions, and the Possibility of Predicting Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage, 18 Duke J. of Gender L. & Pol'y 105, 138, 155 (2010).Google Scholar

¹⁶⁸ Foucault, Michel, Politics and the study of discourse in The Foucault Effect—Studies in Governmentality 58 (Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon, & Peter Miller eds., 1991).Google Scholar

¹⁶⁹ Joyce, , supra note 132.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁰ Id. at 33.Google Scholar

¹⁷¹ See Smith, Paul M., Transcript of Oral Argument at 23, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (No. 02-102); Charles A. Rosenthal, Transcript of Oral Argument at 35, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (No. 02-102); Stephen Breyer, Transcript of Oral Argument at 37, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (No. 02-102).Google Scholar

¹⁷² See Dorf, Michael C. & Tarrow, Sidney, Strange Bedfellows: How an Anticipatory Countermovement Brought Same-Sex Marriage into the Public Arena, 39 Law & Soc. Inquiry 449 (2014).Google Scholar

¹⁷³ Id. at 462.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁴ Id. at 463.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁵ For example, national courts need to be ready to declare legislation invalid if it is found incompatible with the ECHR. Additionally, within the state, religious, nationalist, or rural party powers need to be relatively weak. See Laurence R. Helfer & Erik Voeten, International Courts as Agents of Legal Change: Evidence from LGBT Rights in Europe, 68 Int'l Org. 77 (2014).Google Scholar

¹⁷⁶ See Friedman, Lawrence, Not the Usual Suspects: Suspect Classification Determinations and Same-Sex Marriage Prohibitions, 50 Washburn L.J. 61, 74 (2010).Google Scholar

¹⁷⁷ See generally Slaughter, Anne M., A New World Order (2004) (stating that cross-fertilization would take place not merely through mutual citation, but also, for example, through exchange of practices and regular meetings, for example between members of the U.S. Supreme Court and members of European courts.).Google Scholar

¹⁷⁸ Rosenberg, Gerald N., The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change (2008); Michael J. Klarman, Brown and Lawrence (and Goodridge), 104 Mich. L. Rev. 431, 452–482 (2005).Google Scholar

¹⁷⁹ See Cummings, Scott L. & NeJaime, Douglas, Lawyering for Marriage Equality, 57 ucla l. rev. 1235 (2010).Google Scholar

¹⁸⁰ See generally Cause Lawyers and Social Movements (Austin Sarat & Stuart A. Scheingold eds., 2006); The Politics of Same-Sex Marriage (Craig A. Rimmerman & Clyde Wilcox eds., 2007).Google Scholar

¹⁸¹ Kollman, Kelly, Same-Sex Unions: The Globalization of an Idea, 51 Int'l Stud. Q. 329, 340–42 (2007).Google Scholar

¹⁸² For example, despite the signing and entry into force of the UN Convention Against Torture (1984 and 1987 respectively), practices of torture in the world continue and some countries have failed to introduce the specific offence of torture in their criminal codes. One may also look at the constitutional developments following the so-called “Arab Spring” (2010–2012) with disenchanted eyes.Google Scholar

¹⁸³ Mouffe, Chantal, Democracy, Power and the “Political” in Democracy and Difference—Contesting the Boundaries of the Political 245, 246 (Seyla Benhabib ed., 1996).Google Scholar