Reviews

The text mentions “homosexuals” in the context of the ideological split between liberals and conservatives, noting that conservatives are critical of “homosexuals, drug users, prostitutes, unwed mothers, and pornographers” (93). The section on equal justice under the law has discussions of African Americans, women, Hispanics, Asian Americans, and Native Americans, but does not mention LGBT rights. LGBT rights, described as “sexual orientation rights” appear in the section on privacy rights after abortion rights (398). This section encompasses a discussion of Hardwick, BSA v. Dale, and Romer. It does not mention Lawrence and asserts that 13 states still “outlaw homosexual behavior.” The section mentions the controversy over same-sex marriage, noting Vermont and California's civil union legislation (the text puts the phrase civil union in quotation marks). There is also a box discussion of same-sex marriage and the full faith and credit clause (58). The discussion ignores Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (2003) and Lawrence and quotes a 1995 article speculating that the issue will be left to the states to resolve.²

The box on same-sex marriage has a photo of unnamed “gay couples” renewing their vows in San Francisco.

In this section, the text mostly uses the term “homosexual,” only using “gay” once. Lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered are not mentioned. The index refers only to “sexual orientation” and “same-sex marriage”; it has no entry for “homosexual,” “gay,” “lesbian,” “bisexual,” or “transgender.”

The text operates through setting up debates and closer examinations of topics. It summarizes Lawrence in a sentence as an example of judicial review of state laws (461–2) and includes a paragraph on “gay marriage” that summarizes state developments, the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and the failed campaign to amend the U.S. Constitution to bar same-sex marriage (510–1). One of the debate sidebars poses the question “Should we amend the Constitution to ban gay marriages?” (511). The sidebar provides poll data on same-sex marriage and on amending the Constitution to bar it. A discussion of full faith and credit uses same-sex marriage as an example (111).

The text appears to have no images or graphics representing LGBT individuals identified as such or LGBT issues.

The index has an entry for “homosexuality” and for “gay marriage,” though not for “gays” or “lesbians.” There seems to be no mention of bisexuals or the transgendered in the text.

This text differs from the competitors, as it is set up around a debate between elite control over political institutions and pluralism. It argues that, in general, elite rule is prevalent and demonstrates elite control across all of the institutions of U.S. government. As such, it does not have the usual chapter on civil rights that usually presents the opportunity to discuss LGBT mobilization.

This innovative structure unfortunately coincides with the apparent absence of any sustained discussion of LGBT individuals, history, or mobilization. Women and minorities are often discussed together (e.g., a section on elite recruitment on pages 109–12 notes the paucity of women and minorities in the top ranks of government and industry). There is a chapter on mass protest, but it discusses only that by African Americans and feminists and elite response. (The section on feminism notes the recent emergence of “A ‘third wave’ of feminism, sometimes labeled victim feminism,” at page 415.) The only real presence of LGBT issues is in the chapter on masses in America, where the authors report different facets of public opinion regarding LGBT individuals.

In this chapter (chapter five), several tables note LGBT issues and discuss them in passing in the text. A table on page 135 shows differences in “elite versus mass support of democratic values” and reports numbers from a study published in 1983 on whether “a community [should] allow its auditorium to be used by gay liberation movements to organize for homosexual rights” and approval for “complete equality for homosexuals in teaching and other public service jobs.” A table on the next page indicates rising support for allowing “a homosexual to teach” as educational levels rise (the numbers are from the 2000 General Social Survey [GSS]). Another table in the same chapter reports 1996 numbers on approval for the legalization of gay marriage (144).

There are no index entries for “homosexuals,” “lesbians,” “gays,” “bisexuals,” “the transgendered,” or any of the leading court cases.

The main discussion of LGBT people and issues is under civil rights, where gay and lesbian rights appear in the section on newly active groups under the civil rights umbrella (164–6). The section opens with a discussion of homophobia and the murder of Matthew Shepard, who is described as a “21-year-old political science freshman” (165). The section covers the Stonewall Riots and major court cases, including Hardwick, Dale, Romer, and Lawrence. It also addresses don't ask, don't tell and “gay marriage.” The federal DOMA is mentioned on page 77 in a discussion of full faith and credit, and lesbians and gays are mentioned as a new group seeking protection under civil rights on page 140. The text mentions “gay marriage” in a larger sidebar discussion of whether the government should promote marriage (574) and notes Massachusetts' constitutional convention on the issue as an example of state constitutional amendment practices (655).

The text includes a table on discrimination against homosexuals in employment, showing differentiation over time and across professions (165). It has a photograph of nameless pro-same-sex marriage protesters in Massachusetts (166). The text has a captioned photo of Georgia state representative Nan Orrock addressing a rally against Georgia's anti-same-sex marriage referendum. House Representative Tammy Baldwin is featured in a photograph in a sidebar; she is identified as both the first out lesbian and the first woman from Wisconsin to be elected to Congress. A table compares 2004 party platforms on the question of “gay marriage” (252).

The index has an entry for “gay and lesbian rights”, to which readers are referred if they look up “homosexual rights.” There is no entry for “lesbians.” Bisexuals and the transgendered appear not to be mentioned in the text.

The most extended discussion of LGBT people and issues is in the chapter on civil rights within a subsection on gender, sexuality, and civil rights (492–3). The discussion is entitled “gays and lesbians” and first addresses gays and lesbians as an interest group and voting bloc. The section then discusses the “debate over gay rights,” noting the rise in laws barring employment discrimination, Vermont's adoption of civil unions, and Lawrence, but countering this with negative public opinion statistics, bans against same-sex marriage, Dale, and President George W. Bush's call for a federal law “defining marriage as heterosexual.” There is also a shorter subsection in the chapter on civil liberties (450–1) that discusses Hardwick fairly extensively and notes in a sentence that it was overruled in 2003, attributing the reversal to shifts in public opinion. Lawrence is described as having “extended privacy rights to include sodomy.” Neither section refers to Lawrence by name.

The civil rights section features two graphics. One is a figure showing how public opinion on gay rights has become more favorable as “gay and lesbian political activism has increased” (493). The other is a photograph of “openly affectionate homosexuals” (shirtless gay men) who remain nameless.

The text uses the term “homosexual” in some places but uses “gays and lesbians” a bit more frequently. The index has entries for “gay and lesbian rights” and for “homosexuals.” There is also a separate entry for “lesbian rights.” There appear to be no references to bisexuals or the transgendered.

The most extensive discussion of LGBT people and issues is contained within the chapter on civil rights. “Gays and lesbians” are the final group mentioned (with no mention of bisexuals and the transgendered) and the chapter turns to a focused analysis for three paragraphs. The discussion opens with the suggestion that the movement emerged out of street protests in the 1960s and “the movement has grown into a well-financed and sophisticated lobby.” Special reference to Human Rights Campaign Fund and Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund is made. The second paragraph discusses gays and lesbians in the military and President Bill Clinton's handling of the issue, producing don't ask, don't tell. The text describes the policy as allowing “gays and lesbians to serve in the military as long as they do not openly proclaim their sexual orientation or engage in homosexual activity” (191). The third paragraph discusses Bowers v. Hardwick and draws a parallel between planned litigation for gays and lesbians and planned litigation conducted by the NAACP Inc. Fund in the 1940s and 1950s. The fourth paragraph summarizes the discussion with reference to DOMA and highlights gays' intention to follow the path of other minorities in using the federal equal protection clause and to continue to use litigation as a primary strategy (191). In addition to this focused discussion, a subheading addressing the right to privacy discusses “homosexuality” along with “birth control,” “the right to die,” and “abortion,” presenting Bowers v. Hardwick as an example of the Court's refusal to allow the expansion of privacy rights.

The chapter on federalism uses same-sex marriage as an example of issues arising under the full faith and credit clause (85). It addresses Vermont's civil unions bill, noting that “Although not legally considered marriages, such unions allow gay and lesbian couples most of the benefits of marriage, such as eligibility for the partner's health insurance, inheritance rights, and the right to transfer property. The Vermont statute could have broad implications for other states” (87).

The chapter on public opinion incorporates a one-page discussion of same-sex marriage. This discussion features the only picture in the entire text of LGBT individuals, a photograph of two men wearing flowers around their necks and flower wreaths around their heads exchanging vows. The content of the box has a one-paragraph overview of supporters' arguments that asserts that “Supporters of gay marriage point out that homosexuality is neither a fad nor a choice, but an involuntary condition” (215). The two paragraphs discussing the opponents' views incorporates but does not challenge factually wrong assumptions, e.g., “Many gay couples would seek to adopt children, but not enough research exists to demonstrate whether children would be harmed by such a situation” (215). The following two pages present articles from the Daily Princetonian debating “Should gay marriage be legal?” The “yes” argument claims that, much like John Locke's discussion of “idolatry,” marriages between same-sex individuals should be tolerated because there is no good reason to outlaw them. The “no” argument responds to these points and presents a more forceful analysis that picks up points raised in the previous page's opponents' views.

The chapter on groups and interests mentions the 1993 march on Washington, but notes that Clinton, while supportive of it, “did not attend the march for fear of offending religious conservatives” (437). The point of this discussion was to show that his close ties to the LGBT community during the campaign were tempered by fear of conservatives once he had taken office. The chapter on the presidency also notes Clinton's use of an executive order to institute don't ask, don't tell (523).

The index contains entries for “gay and lesbian” with subcategories: “marriage,” “in military,” “rights for,” and “right to privacy.” For “homosexual” and “lesbian” entries the reference says to “see Gay and Lesbian.” There are no entries for “transsexual,” “transgendered,” or “bisexual” and no material within the text related to these terms. No entry for “sexual orientation” exists either. No gay-related terms can be found in the glossary.

The principal discussion takes place in the section on civil rights (530–3), where “homosexual Americans” appear immediately after “disabled Americans.” The section begins with a discussion of the Stonewall Riots and the emergence of Lesbian-Gay (LG) pressure groups in the 1970s. The three out members of Congress are mentioned by name and the Log Cabin Republicans are noted. The discussion notes that lesbians and gays do not yet have the protections of many other minority groups and notes don't ask, don't tell (531–2). The section notes the controversy over same-sex marriage, and explains that several states prohibit it. The text oddly notes, however, that “it will be years before the lengthy amendment process runs its course. And in the meantime, homosexual marriage will be the law of the land, at least in the Bay State” (532). The discussion here ends with a summary of the Dale case and describes the ruling and dissent in neutral terms (532–3). The text also addresses “personal autonomy and sexual orientation” on pages 505–7, largely through a summary of Bowers v. Hardwick and Lawrence v. Texas. The summaries of the rulings present both sides neutrally and the text includes a block quote from Scalia's dissent. After the quote, the summary of Lawrence continues, “The challenge of democracy calls for the democratic process to sort out value conflicts whenever possible. And, according to Scalia, the majority has moved from its traditional role umpiring the system to favoring one side over another in the struggle between freedom and order” (506). The discussion here also covers same-sex marriage in the states (507). Tolerant attitudes toward “alternative lifestyles—for example, homosexual behavior” are used to characterize liberals (25). The text also discusses attitudes toward same-sex marriage to illustrate public opinion (140–1). Finally, the text uses legitimizing same-sex unions as an example of a non-redistributive means of promoting social equality (11).

The text has a photo of Julie and Hillary Goodridge, who are identified by name as the first “gay couple” to gain marriage licenses in Boston (531). There is also a photo of James Dale as an Eagle Scout (532) and of protestors outside of the Massachusetts State House bold captioned “Adam and Eve or Adam and Steve” with a brief explanation of the effort to ban same-sex marriage through constitutional amendment in Massachusetts (505). The text also has a graphic showing the distribution of public opinion on same-sex marriage (141).

The index has entries for gay marriage, gay rights law, and (perplexingly) “gays in,” but the main entry for gays and lesbians refers the reader to “Homosexuals (gays).” The text mostly refers to “gays and lesbians” rather than to “homosexuals.” It uses “gay marriage” and “same-sex marriage” interchangeably. I saw no mention of bisexuals or the transgendered.

The longest discussion of “gay rights” is a short segment encompassing less than a page. The paragraph covers lack of legislation, discussion of hate crimes, and employment or other discrimination based on sexual orientation (139). Romer is discussed briefly in this section. The section on civil liberties provides four sentences on Hardwick plus a footnote; the footnote misstates Romer's holding as establishing “that homosexuals could not be excluded from explicit civil rights protections” (177).³

Homosexuality is also discussed in the context of freedom of speech, as the authors give examples of toleration of unpopular speech. The four examples used are speech by a communist, an anti-African-American racist, an atheist, and a homosexual (152, 154). The authors do not note the lack of a parallel between LGBT orientation and the other three categories as beliefs. “Homosexuals” are mentioned once more in the text as objects about whom questions “make up an important part of the political agenda” (377).

The only visual I could locate in the text was a picture of a wedding photographer photographing two nameless gay men in tuxedoes (138). In the caption, the struggle over same-sex marriage (referred to as gay marriage) was characterized as an “emerging issue that falls outside traditional demands of civil rights.”

The text uses the terms “homosexual” and “gay” more or less interchangeably. None of the focused discussions mention lesbians, bisexuals, or the transgendered. The index provides entries only for “gay” and “homosexual,” with more entries for “homosexual.”

The longest discussion of LGBT people and issues takes place on pages 141–2 in the chapter on civil rights. The discussion opens historically in 1993 with don't ask, don't tell. It also covers Hardwick, Romer, and Lawrence. Don't ask, don't tell also appears as an example of an executive order on page 237, and Lawrence is referenced again in the context of several landmark decisions released by the Court at the end of the 2002 term. Same-sex marriage is used as an example to illustrate the full faith and credit clause (82). This discussion covers civil unions in Vermont, the federal DOMA, and state DOMAs. The text mentions the Democratic Party's support for gay rights as part of its liberal profile (485). A 1993 rally is cited as an example of social movement politics (though the authors claim that the march was intended to eliminate discrimination against individuals based on their “sexual preference” [emphasis added, 530]).

There appear to be no images or graphics explicitly relating to LGBT individuals or issues. (This text is very light on photos/graphics as compared to others.)

The text has parallel index entries for “lesbian and gay movements” and “gay and lesbian movements.” The entry on “homosexuals” does not refer back to these entries but includes more subentries. The text mostly uses “gay and lesbian” and occasionally “homosexual.” It seems to include no references to bisexuals or the transgendered.

The text features a discussion of “homosexuality” in the chapter on the right to privacy (191). This discussion primarily summarizes Lawrence and its impact on Hardwick and state sodomy laws. It also mentions the Court's ruling in Dale and notes public approval for both rulings. There is a more extensive discussion of “gays and lesbians” in the chapter on civil rights in a subsection entitled “other groups mobilize for rights” (227–8). This section opens with a discussion of emerging political clout for gays and lesbians. It also addresses shifts in public opinion. It covers don't ask, don't tell and summarizes Romer and the emergence of civil unions. It notes Lawrence as “really put[ting] homosexual rights on the public agenda” (227). The section ends with a brief discussion of same-sex marriage and the passage of state constitutional amendments banning it. The text also uses the federal marriage amendment as an example of a failed constitutional amendment in a page-long focus section (64). The text notes Cracker Barrel's decision under pressure to adopt an anti-discrimination policy as an example of “the reality that discrimination persists in the United States” (232). The text mentions the effort by conservative members of Congress to prevent federal courts from hearing challenges to the federal DOMA as an example of congressional pressure on the courts (273). The chapter on the Supreme Court opens with a discussion of Lawrence (343). The opening discussion on parties mentions differences in party platforms regarding same-sex marriage (418).

A map details the impact of Lawrence on state sodomy laws (191). A photo of Barney Frank in the Congress section quotes his own self-identification as “a left-handed gay Jew” (254). The page-long profile of Lawrence that opens the chapter on the judiciary has a large photograph of a nameless lesbian couple celebrating the decision. Finally, the parties chapter has a photo of Dick Gephardt campaigning with his daughter Chrissy, who is identified as “openly gay” (as is Mary Cheney in the caption to the photograph) (433).

The index entry for “homosexuals” refers the reader to “gays and lesbians,” as does the entry for “lesbians.” The index has no entry for “bisexuals” or the “transgendered.”

The most extended discussion takes place in three paragraphs in the equal rights chapter. Gays and lesbians are discussed in a section entitled “Other Groups and their Rights” along with the disabled (148). This discussion summarizes Hardwick, Dale, and Romer. It also mentions Vermont's move to approve civil unions and the passage of state DOMAs. Don't ask, don't tell is also mentioned. The section on the right to privacy includes a three-sentence summary of Hardwick (116). Other brief mentions include the following: Scalia's dissent in Romer appears as an example of the philosophy of judicial restraint (455); homosexuals are mentioned as a minority group victimized by discrimination along with a mostly racial laundry list (131); and Dale is discussed in a sidebar as an example of private discrimination permitted by the federal courts (151).

There appear to be no images or graphics explicitly relating to LGBT individuals or issues.

The text uses “gay and lesbian” a bit more often than “homosexual” but uses both. I saw no discussion of bisexuals or the transgendered. The index provides entries for “homosexuals and their rights” and “discrimination against.” There is also an index entry for “gay rights,” but no entry for “lesbian.”

The lengthiest discussion occurs in the chapter on equal rights. A subsection entitled “gays and lesbians” is in “other groups and their rights,” grouped with “older Americans” and “Disabled Americans” (171–4). The section opens with a discussion of BSA v. Dale and provides poll data on discriminatory attitudes. Other topics addressed briefly include don't ask, don't tell, same-sex marriage, Romer, and Lawrence. The discussion of same-sex marriage addresses Goodridge and the constitutional bans of the 2004 election. The author also includes poll data indicating less acceptance for gays and lesbians in the U.S. than in Germany, France, Italy, Great Britain, and Canada and attributes the difference to greater religiosity in the U.S. Lawrence and Hardwick are also discussed in the context of sexual relations among consenting adults in the section on civil liberties (130). Lawrence is used as an example of federal judicial intervention into affairs traditionally controlled by the states (493), and as an example of judicial activism (511). Gays and lesbians are noted as the Democratic Party's “third most loyal voting bloc” (273).

Aside from a poll graphic, there appear to be no visuals of LGBT individuals or involving LGBT issues.

The text uses “homosexuals” and “gays and lesbians” more or less interchangeably, with a slight preference for “gays and lesbians.” The index has entries for “gays and lesbians” that refer the reader to the entry for “homosexual.” Bisexuals and the transgendered are not mentioned.

The text has an entire section within civil rights on “The Rights and Status of Gay Males and Lesbians” (175–8). The section covers the history of the movement for LG rights, state and local laws targeting gay men and lesbians, the gay community and politics, the military, same-sex marriage (referred to as “same-sex,” not “gay,” marriage), and child custody and adoption. The discussion of Romer is accurate. The section also mentions the presence of out members of Congress though it does not name them. Gays are mentioned in passing in an opening discussion of privacy, equality, and liberty (12, 13). The issue of same-sex marriage is used briefly to illustrate renewed liberal interest in states' rights (105). One of the focused “what if” examples addresses the question: “What if one state's same-sex marriages had to be recognized nationwide?” and uses the question to illuminate full faith and credit and national supremacy (150).

The section on civil rights includes photos of James Dale, of former Navy Lieutenant Paul Tomasson (with caption discussing “don't ask, don't tell” policy), and of a same-sex marriage rally.

The text mostly uses “gay men and lesbians.” There is no mention of bisexuals or the transgendered. The index provides entries for “lesbians” and “homosexuals” that refer readers to the entry on “gay males and lesbians.”

The longest discussion of LGBT people and issues is in the chapter on civil rights, which has a section entitled “gay men and lesbians” (120). The section consists of a summary paragraph on the Stonewall Riots and the formation of social movement organizations in the 1970s, a section on changing laws, and a section on changing attitudes. The section on law discusses anti-discrimination legislation, Romer, and the addition of LG rights to the Democratic Party's platform. The section on attitudes summarizes the growth of positive public opinion toward lesbians and gays and cites softening conservative hostility. There is a featured discussion on “should gay and lesbian couples be allowed to marry?” The section summarizes the history of the same-sex marriage debate up to 1999 and briefly reviews arguments for and against same-sex marriage through the lens of social movements/interest groups.

The only image relevant to LGBT individuals or issues was a photograph in the section on same-sex marriage of nameless anti-civil union protesters rallying in Vermont.

The index entry for “homosexuals” refers the readers to an entry on “gay men and lesbians.” There is also an entry for “lesbians” referring back to the substantive entry on “gay men and lesbians.” There appears to be no mention of bisexuals or the transgendered.

The text uses the issue of gay marriage to explain the full faith and credit clause in a box in the chapter on the structure of the federal system (54). Another close-up box discusses Romer and Lawrence v. Texas as “landmark victories for gays” in the broader discussion of civil rights (though the authors get the year of Lawrence wrong) (322). This box also mentions discrimination and hate crimes laws.

There appear to be no visuals in the text of LGBT individuals identified as such.

The two boxes mostly use the term “gay” but occasionally use “homosexual.” The box on landmark victories mentions lesbians but not bisexuals or the transgendered. The index provides entries only for “gay marriage” and “gay rights.”

The text uses Dale to introduce the chapter on civil liberties (421–2, 457–8). Dale sandwiches the chapter, with an introduction of the question at the beginning and an epilogue summarizing the majority ruling and Stevens' dissent. The opening section gives background on Dale and sets up the associational question as a tension between minority rights and expressive association. The intro also references the St. Patrick's Day parade case. It also has a section on “homosexuality” in the section on privacy (454–5), but no separate discussion in the civil rights chapter. The substantive section begins with a discussion of privacy but is not updated to address Lawrence, focusing instead on Hardwick. The section also discusses Romer and notes the passage of the federal DOMA and state DOMAs. It also summarizes the same-sex marriage debate, focusing primarily on Vermont. It notes don't ask, don't tell and describes the policy in negative terms, noting particularly the hostility that lesbians face in the armed forces. Another long substantive section discusses gays and lesbians as an interest group, providing a brief history of LG empowerment, the role of the AIDS epidemic, the relationship between Clinton and gay groups, and the Human Rights Campaign's efforts to support the election of LGBT-friendly politicians (158–9). Briefer mentions include civil unions as an example of the controversy over full faith and credit (73), attitudes about the morality of “homosexual relations” as an example of the conservative-liberal split (99), and conservative Christian mobilization against LGBT liberation (165).

A photograph of James Dale as a scout appears at the beginning of the chapter and another of him at the time of the litigation appears in the epilogue box on page 457. There is a pro-same-sex marriage cartoon on 454. The text also includes a photo of two nameless women exchanging rings in Vermont (455).

Cross-referenced index entries link “homosexual issues” with “gay issues.” The opening discussion of Dale mentions bisexuals in the context of the St. Patrick's Day case. Bisexuals and the transgendered are otherwise absent.

The most extensive discussion of LGBT people and issues takes place in a section headed “Gays and the Constitution” at the end of the chapter on civil rights (149–51). In addition to a discussion of the constitutional issues involved in Hardwick and Lawrence (using the case names) and Romer and Dale (but not citing the case names in the text), there is a highlighted box called “Landmark Cases: Gay Rights” that includes the Lawrence and Dale cases with a very brief and somewhat misleading summary of the holding in each case focusing on the outcome for the winners rather than on the constitutional principles established. The text also says that the vote on Lawrence was like the vote on Hardwick, 5-4, when the Lawrence vote was really 6-3 in terms of votes in favor of voiding the Texas law. This section also includes a photo of protestors on both sides of the same-sex marriage issue outside the Massachusetts State House. The discussion includes the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's issuance of marriage licenses, and public opinion trends favoring Vermont-like civil unions.

The text alternates between use of the term “homosexual” and of “gays and lesbians.” There are two graphics—one on “tolerance” showing increasing public willingness to vote for a “homosexual” for president (95) and another showing the percentage of people identifying “religion” as the source of their beliefs on homosexuality (161). In addition to the photo of protestors, there are two other photos on LGBT issues—one on page 286 of the Goodridge plaintiffs and their attorney (though their identity is not given) in the section on interest groups (i.e., lawsuits as a tool of interest groups); and one on page 552 of gay veterans marching in what appears to be a Pride parade that accompanies a brief description of the “gays in the military” issue in the chapter on foreign policy.

Two statements appeared to be incorrect or misleading. In the public opinion chapter, a discussion of AIDS and homosexuality includes the following statement: “efforts to quarantine people infected with AIDS were met with firm resistance from the medical community and from other policy elites. The elites even managed to persuade some legislatures to bar insurance companies from testing insurance applicants for the disease” (174). This discussion ignores the crucial role of ACT UP and other grassroots activism in shaping how the country responded to AIDS in the 1980s. The second statement appears in the chapter on civil liberties in a section entitled “Culture Conflicts” where the Boy Scout case is discussed (this is a second discussion of this case in addition to the one in the following civil rights chapter) which includes the statement: “The Boy Scouts of America refuses to allow homosexual men to become scout leaders even though federal law says that homosexuals may not be victims of discrimination” (emphasis mine). No such federal law exists.

The main index entry is for “Homosexual (gay) rights.” There is also an entry for “Gay (same-sex) marriage.” There are no headings for “lesbian” or “transgendered.” There are index entries for “Hardwick,” “Lawrence,” and “Dale.”