Marriage, Biology, and Federal Benefits
This Article approaches the topic of same-sex marriage from a novel perspective by scrutinizing the historical accuracy of primary defense proffered by same-sex marriage opponents – “responsible procreation.” In the context of challenges to Section 3 of DOMA, responsible procreation posits that the federal government’s historic purpose in extending marital benefits is to single out and specially support families with biologically-related children. Because same-sex couples cannot fulfill this long-standing purpose, it is permissible to deny them all federal marital rights and obligations. While advocates disagree about whether and to what extent DOMA furthers this alleged federal interest, to date, all sides have accepted this historical account.This Article is the first to interrogate the accuracy of this account. To do so, the Article examines two of the largest and most important federal benefits programs – Social Security benefits and benefits for active and retired members of the U.S. military. This analysis demonstrates that Congress has not and does not condition the receipt of federal family-based benefits on biological parent-child relationships. To the contrary, Congress long has implicitly and explicitly extended such benefits to families with children known to be biologically unrelated to one or both of their parents. This Article thus reveals that responsible procreation is based on myth, not history and tradition.
Estate Planning in Light of New Developments in Same-Sex Relationships and Reproductive Science
The growing societal acceptance of same-sex relationships along with the rapidly expanding use of assisted reproductive technology (ART) combine two challenges for family law and probate courts: Who will be treated as the spouse and who will be treated as the child (or further descendant)? This paper examines some of the legal issues you may encounter in your practice, points out drafting considerations and provides forms to deal with some of the issues raised.
Immunization with Brucella melitensis Rev 1 against Brucella ovis infection of rams.
The efficacy of Brucella Melitensis Rev 1 vaccine (Rev 1) for the prophylaxis of Brucella ovis ram epididymitis was evaluated. Twenty-nine 3-month-old rams were vaccinated with 2 X 10(9) Rev 1 and 14 were revaccinated with 5 X 10(8) at 14 months of age. Six rams remained unvaccinated as a control group. All rams were challenged with 5 X 10(8) B. ovis at 21 months of age. Before being slaughtered 8 weeks later, only one vaccinated ram developed epididymitis while four of the six control rams developed testicular alterations. Genital and selected extragenital organs and lymph nodes were removed at slaughter and inoculated on selective media. B. ovis was isolated from 26.6% of the vaccinated rams, 21.4% of the revaccinated rams and 100% of control rams. Portions of epididymis, testes and vesicular glands were also used for pathological studies. More severe lesions were observed in control rams than in vaccinated ones. In conclusion, these results show that vaccination of young lambs, followed or not by revaccination, is a suitable method for the prophylaxis of B. ovis infection of rams.