Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Smith on "marriage," "equality," and question-begging
Following up on Michael's post regarding Andy Koppelman's review of George et al.'s book (phew!) . . . here's a piece by Prof. Steven Smith, with whose work I imagine most of us are familiar, from Public Discourse, called "The Red Herring of 'Marriage Equality.'" As both the George et al. book and Andy's review of it remind us, it is not possible to avoid, in the argument / debate / conversation about same-sex marriage and whether its legal recognition is constitutionally or morally required, the question of what "marriage" is. And, I'm inclined to agree with Steve that, often, the appeal to "equality" (as in "marriage equality") in this context unhelpfully skips past this question, or assumes a contestable answer to it. (And, Andy would say, in response, that those who oppose legal recognition of same-sex marriage do the same thing.)
This sometimes happens, of course, in the abortion debate, too, when the question is framed as "why shouldn't a woman have the right to decide what to do with a part of her body?" when, after all, those who abortion would agree that (generally speaking) we all have a right to decide what to do with a "part of [our] bodies" -- the right question is, "is the unborn child, for purposes of answering a question about what we may do to him or her, a person?"
https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2013/03/smith-on-marriage-equality-and-question-begging.html
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the
comment feed
for this post.
I agree with Prof. Smith's point, but think it's unfortunate that he chose the illustrative example of the not granting driver's licenses to blind people, inviting those disinclined to listen to say that he's comparing same sex attraction to a defect like blindness, and thus opposition to same sex marriage must be grounded in the notion that same sex attraction is some kind of defect.