The author makes “two basic points in support of the idea that we should be attentive to, but should not overstate, the institutional dimensions of social change” on gay issues that courts are often accused of promoting. She first examines what exactly “social change” means in this context. If it “means moving the proverbial hearts and minds” of the public, then what she terms “law skepticism” is probably the most defensible position: “the sensibility that anti-discrimination laws cannot themselves change people’s attitudes about the groups such laws” protect. Schacter next inquires into “the significant variability in the realm of gay rights.” In her four-square analysis, both courts and legislatures have each produced both positive change and backlash, and thus it is simplistic to portray any specific relationship as predominating. Rather than seeking universal explanations, she proposes that our attention focus on learning whatever lessons can be gleaned from particular episodes. Transcript of symposium presenters discussing these issues follows the article.

While holding in favor of same-sex litigants, remedial relief was delayed by the courts in both Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health [798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003)] and Baker v. State [744 A.2d 864 (Vt. 1999)]. This author examines the doctrinal and political reasons for this delay. The author also discusses whether Goodridge was responsible for the 2004 presidential election, and whether Goodridge caused a political backlash against gay rights.

The author compares the backlash against desegregation which occurred after Brown v. Board of Education [347 U.S. 483 (1954)], to attacks on gay rights following Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health [798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003)]. The author concludes that while backlash cannot be avoided in significant civil rights advances, it can be overcome.