A Critique of Nussbaum’s “Disgust” Argument

The new issue of the Columbia Journal of Gender and Law—Volume 19, Number 1, 2010—is a “Symposium Volume Honoring the Contributions of Martha Nussbaum to the Scholarship and Practice of Gender & Sexuality Law”.

Nussbaum’s formidable colleague at the University of Chicago School of Law, Mary Anne Case, has a contribution in the volume titled “A Lot to Ask:  Review Essay of Martha Nussbaum’s From Disgust to Humanity:  Sexual Orientation and Constitutional Law” (pp. 90-124).  I just read Case's contribution, and In my judgment, Case’s critique of Nussbaum’s “disgust” argument is quite powerful.

Case’s critique is, if anything, more powerful given that Case herself, self-described in the piece “as a feminist theorist and constitutional law scholar” (p. 120), declares that “[i]t is my profound hope, as it is Martha Nussbaum’s, that in our lifetime the U.S. Constitution will be held to guarantee equal marriage rites and rights to couples regardless of their sex” (p. 124).

Case's article is available here.