William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
Abstract
In this response to Professor Koppelman, Professor Duncan takes issue with the assertions Koppelman makes in Romer v. Evans and Invidious Intent. Though Duncan agrees with Koppelman's summary of the rule of Romer and the ongoing effects of Bowers v. Hardwick, he rejects Koppelman's claims that laws that discriminate against gays will always be constitutionally doubtful because they disadvantage an unpopular class.
Duncan claims that Koppelman has tried, without success or authority, to fill in the "missing pages" left in Romer by the Supreme Court. Finally, he argues that traditional marriage laws are valid and will survive under Romer and rational basis analysis.