Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
minimal
marriage,
a
non-reciprocal,
network
of
caring
adult
relationships,
unbundled
from
the
traditional
mutual
and
exclusive
constraints
of
marriage.
Brakes
claim
is
that
minimal
marriage
constitutes
the
most
extensive
set
of
restrictions
compatible
with
political
liberalism.
(2010,
p.
305)
Im
skeptical
as
to
whether
minimal
marriage
is
the
most
extensive
set
of
restrictions
compatible
with
political
liberalism
in
the
short
term,
however
its
arguable
that
Brakes
claim
has
theoretical
merit.
I
will
later
address
whether
I
think
minimal
marriage
is
the
only
form
of
marriage
able
to
be
legitimately
supported
by
the
PLS.
However,
I
turn
first
to
the
strongest
claims
of
Brakes
proposal,
and
that
is
her
unbundling
of
marriage
from
the
peripheral
rights
and
it
has
traditionally
bestowed
on
participants.
Traditional
hetero-normative
state
support
of
marriage
arbitrarily
privileges
some
members
of
society
(Brake,
2010,
p.
303)
and
Brake
supposes
that
the
basic
structure
of
society
ought
to
be
regulated
not
by
arbitrary
privilege
but
by
principles
of
justice
(2010,
p.
304)
The
current
rights
framework
is
efficient
but
unjust
(Brake,
2010,
p.
306)
In
line
with
Rawlsian
principles
of
justice,
Brake
has
embraced
the
idea
that
laws
and
institutions
no
matter
how
efficient
and
well-arranged
must
be
reformed
or
abolished
if
they
are
unjust.
(Rawls,
1971,
p.
3)
Minimal
marriage
rights
therefore,
are
available
as
an
asymmetrical,
divided
selection
of
rights,
necessarily
reduced
from
status
quo.
Brakes
proposal
is
both
noble
and
progressive,
however
a
potential
limitation
to
its
widespread
support
is
its
failure
to
account
for
the
social
value
of
marriage
as
an
institution,
among
reasonably
diverse
range
of
comprehensive
doctrine
holders.
Her
minimal
marriage
proposal
is
almost
too
ambitious,
insofar
as
it
re-
appropriates
the
term
marriage
to
a
construction
most
members
of
society
wont
recognize.
Is
Brakes
proposal
just,
equitable,
and
well
suited
to
the
ideals
of
a
PLS?
Absolutely.
Is
it
likely
to
be
implemented
in
the
near
future,
by
even
the
most
progressive,
PLS?
Possibly
not.
The
barriers
to
entry
are
incredibly
high,
it
is
difficult
to
envisage
a
culture
wide
reconceptualization
of
marriage
as
a
minimal,
variable
and
non-exclusive
arrangement.
If
we
were
starting
from
first
principles,
and
designing
a
utopian,
PLS,
Brakes
minimal
marriage
is
easily
justified
on
the
grounds
of
public
reason.
However,
we
are
not,
and
the
social
policy
needed
to
secure
equal
citizenship
in
a
given
society
must
be
context
sensitive
to
be
effective.
(Hartley
&
Watson,
2012,
p.
187)
In
the
short
term,
state
recognition
of
same
sex
marriage
may
be
the
best
way
to
ameliorate
discrimination
suffered
by
particular
citizens,
this
is
because
the
state
has
the
power
to
confer
legitimacy
(Hartley
&
Watson,
2012,
p.
203)
on
certain
relationships
where
second-class
citizenship
is
experienced
by
a
minority
group.
So
in
a
contemporary
western
democracy,
a
prototypical
PLS
is
justified
on
the
grounds
of
public
reason
to
support
same
sex
marriage
to
ensure
homosexual
couples
have
an
opportunity
to
advance
their
conception
of
the
good
life.
This
represents
equality
of
opportunity
for
same
sex
couples,
as
citizens
holding
traditional
hetero-normative
comprehensive
doctrines
are
currently
allowed
to
advance
their
conception
of
the
good
life,
with
state
support.
In
order
to
adhere
to
politically
liberal
principles
of
justice,
the
state
can
support
traditional
hetero-
normative
marriages,
in
addition
to
same
sex
and
gender
queer
marriages,
providing
equality
of
opportunity
for
citizens
to
advance
their
conception
of
the
good
life.
References
Brake,
Elizabeth
2010,
Minimal
Marriage:
What
Political
Liberalism
Implies
for
Marriage
Law,
Ethics,
120(2),
pp.
302
-
337.
Hartley,
C.
&
Watson,
L.
2012,
Political
Liberalism,
Marriage
and
the
Family,
Law
and
Philosophy,
31(2),
pp.
185
-
212.
Rawls,
John,
1971,
A
Theory
of
Justice,
Harvard
University
Press,
Massachusetts
Rawls,
John,
1997,
The
Idea
of
Public
Reason
Revisited,
The
University
of
Chicago
Law
Review,
64,
pp.
765
-
807.
Wedgwood,
Ralph,
1999,
The
Fundamental
Argument
for
Same-Sex
Marriage,
Journal
of
Political
Philosophy,
7(3),
pp.
225
-
242.