This article examines the use of foreign and international law in the adjudication of U.S. constitutional claims in gay rights cases. It explores the distinction between structural provisions and individual rights provisions, and it argues that foreign law can be particularly useful in advancing individual rights claims. Both due process and equal protection claims are considered.

Anthology consisting mostly of papers presented at a 2005 conference at Trinity College in Dublin. Contributors explore moral, philosophical and legal issues related to committed relationships under law, with an emphasis on same-sex couples and their families and the law of Ireland.

Intersexed persons are born with external genitalia that are fully neither male nor female, creating problems for a system of "allocating rights on the basis of sex," especially in the areas of employment and marriage. Rellis contrasts the treatment of those born intersexed in the United States -- usually triggering emergency "corrective surgery aimed at 'normalizing' external genitalia to fit societal expecations" -- with those in the India, the hijras, a group she describes as "beginning to gain legal recognition in India when they self-identify as a third gender." The "E" mentioned in the title is one example, an official third-gender designation allowed (referring to "eunuch") for documents such as passports. The author urges reforms that ensure "a constitutional right to self-identify outside the gender binary based on the fundamental right to privacy and bodily integrity derived from the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause," and identifies some statutory efforts such as the International Bill of Gender Rights adopted by the International Conference on Transgender Law and Employment Policy as important first steps.

The author of this article compares the status of same-sex marriage in Canada vs. England and Wales. In response to court challenges, Canada passed the Civil Marriage Act in 2005, which granted same-sex couples the same right to marry as opposite-sex couples. In England and Wales, in contrast, Parliament passed the Civil Partnership Act in 2004, which gave same-sex couples most, but not all, of the same rights as opposite sex couples. The author considers the factors that gave rise to the differing results in England and Canada, and also considers a number of arguments as to why the UK legislation violates the Human Rights Act of 1998.