IS MARRIAGE A RIGHT? Gabriel Rosenberg replies to Mary Catelli, Maureen Mullarkey, and Ogre

Mary Catelli writes, "[Jim Henley] simply assumes that we can limit the recognition to sexual relationships." In fact, nowhere in his post does he state this. A man and a woman cannot be denied a marriage license simply because they refuse to engage in sex.

Maureen Mullarkey writes, "Every institution has requirements for membership. Homosexuals already have the freedom to marry." The question here is what requirements may be used. Can the government forbid interracial marriages or interfaith marriages? Everyone would still have the freedom to marry.

Ogre goes so far as to say "Jim's arguments makes no sense." He points out "food stamps are issued to people according to a set of criteria based on income and family size." Sure, but even then the government must justify using those criteria. The question here is, Can the government come up with a justification for using criteria based on sex?

He then writes with respect to marriage, "[the government is] making a set of rules that are applied to all individuals who wish to participate in the institution regardless of sex, color, or religion." The rules, though, are
not regardless of sex. If the government were sex-blind, SSM would not be an issue.

Finally Ogre says that equal protection arguments fall flat because rights apply to individuals not groups. It is precisely for this reason, though, that the argument is quite strong. Look at the situation on an individual
basis. John wants to marry Chuck. Why is he denied? Because of his sex. There must be some--and probably a great deal of--justification for this. It doesn't matter that as groups men and women face parallel restrictions.
posted by Eve at 6:07 PM | Link |

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home