FORA.tv

The Smart Network

FORA.tv SERIES: Same Sex Marriage

Michael Sandel on Justice: A Journey in Moral Reasoning

Aspen Institute
Rate It
29,615 Views
  • Info
  • Bio
  • Full Program
  • Highlights
  • Transcript
  • Download
  • More
Page 1 of 2 1 2
heybd Avatar
heybd
Posts: 51
Posted: 10.29.08, 10:36 AM
I think there is a good point here in his three options, and I don't understand how anyone can support position 1. Either marriage for everyone, or marriage for no one. Otherwise you might as well start building separate bathrooms and water fountains again. And religion should not factor in to the argument at the state level.
Permalink
acarminito Avatar
acarminito
Posts: 0
Posted: 11.13.08, 08:51 PM
I really hope that the funds and support arrive for this project to be supported by WBGH. Not all of us can get to Harvard to participate in these classes and discussions, but we certainly have something to learn from all of the people involved. Wow!
Permalink
Errin Davenport Avatar
Errin Davenport
Posts: 1
Posted: 01.07.09, 02:57 AM
I am gay and was very opposed to prop 8. A possible fourth option could be found in the stare decisis of the Supreme Court itself in the now infamous case, "In Re: Marriage." That the state only issue civil unions to all leaving the term marriage for the symbolic religious ceremonies. Of course this would allow some churches to create gay marriages, but those would not be recognized by other churches. But it would have no legal impact and the same rights and protections would be extended to all.
Permalink
Toolbit Avatar
Toolbit
Posts: 1
Posted: 06.03.09, 11:07 PM
I was a bit surprised that so few people were of the persuasion (full disclosure: I ascribe to this) that marriage should not be "blessed" by the state. I greatly appreciated Dr. Sandel's appraisal, and believe he is correct that that is reason, but I find it strange that so many people believe the government ought to have a say in the matter. Do gay or straight people believe it validates their marriage when the court system gives it the thumbs up? Or diminished when it's thumbs down?
Permalink
ladyfox14 Avatar
ladyfox14
Posts: 29
Posted: 06.05.09, 05:45 PM
I am for reason number 2 but reason number 3 sounds interesting. Reason number 3 is something of the unknown and the unknown scares us and makes us feel insecure so I am not surprised that not too many people, including me, are opting for it.

If you let any church, casino, shopping mall marry you, then getting married does not feel 'as special' and is almost viewed as common as buying groceries at the store. Having a relationship with someone is an ongoing process and I guess we want marriage to be a solid step of this process, not just something on our to do list.

If we all agreed on reason number 3 and we *all* held marriage with the highest level of respect, then I think the arrangement could work out. But more than not, you would probably find higher marriage rates due to drunk sixteen year olds getting married at their local mall. Does this mean we can get divorced at the mall as well? In an odd way, if getting married was easy and getting divorced took a considerable amount of effort, it should work like getting a tattoo: it's easy to get a rose or your boyfriend's name tattooed on your back but it will most certainly be quite painful and arduous to get it removed and you will think twice before doing something without thinking it through. Getting married could be regarded the same way and maybe we would see longer lasting marriages.
Permalink
Tek Avatar
Tek
Posts: 2
Posted: 06.05.09, 06:15 PM
While I could very easily support the third option I am left with a couple of questions and welcome your response. If the government was removed from marriage authentication then how would polygamy or divorce be handled? If we say then that the marriage would be registered by the government to avoid such issues, then we really are back at the beginning where government is endorsing the marriage. How would such issues be handled, while seperating government from marriage?

This is more legalistic than philosophical, but unfortunately these two seem bitterly entwined.
Permalink
Tek Avatar
Tek
Posts: 2
Posted: 06.05.09, 06:23 PM
"If you let any church, casino, shopping mall marry you, then getting married does not feel 'as special' and is almost viewed as common as buying groceries at the store. "

This statement implies, and correct me if i misunderstand you, that a persons marriage must feel "special" to those not married to validate it. If that marriage feels "special" to only the two people involved is it less validated?
Permalink
daniel_t Avatar
daniel_t
Posts: 4
Posted: 07.27.09, 12:50 PM
This is in response to both ladyfox14 and Tek,

I thought of “option 3” independently, before seeing this video or hearing about it from other sources. It is an obvious extension of separation of church and state.

Marriage is a religious institution, we are reminded of that on a continual basis, as such it should not be for the state to decide who is, or is not, married, nor should it be up to the state to decide if/when people can get divorced or what the results of a divorce may be. However, a civil union, as its name implies is a civil matter, something the state should be involved in. The state should decide who is, or is not, allowed to get one, and how one can be absolved.

It’s a simple matter of striking all references to “marriage” from all law books and replacing it with references to “civil union”. Most religious people have no problem with two men or two women having “civil unions” so the who question of gay marriage would be moved out of the legal system and into the various religions where it belongs.

Ladyfox14, we might end up with higher marriage rates, but that would be a non-issue because drunk 16 year olds still couldn’t get civil unions.

Tek, in answer to your questions.

How would divorce be handled? The government would not be involved in disillusion of marriage at all, they would be involved in disillusion of civil unions though, and dissolving a civil union would be every bit as arduous as a divorce currently is. Would divorces be hard? That depends on the church, not the state.

How would polygamy be handled? The question of whether more than two people can enter into a civil union has not been seriously broached as far as I know.
Permalink
nickw Avatar
nickw
Posts: 2
Posted: 08.04.09, 12:07 PM
A marriage may be for love, children, politics, family, tax breaks, or any of a myriad of reasons, and yet the act of marriage or civil union includes both parties implicitly or explicitly agreeing to grant each other certain rights, and receive certain duties in return: the Book of Common Prayer suggests these explicit agreements in the common vows:
“To have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part."
The rights to have and to hold, to love and to cherish, and the duties to continue in such until death of one party, no matter the circumstances. We may consider that abuse of one party by the other would be a violation of loving and cherishing. However, instead of having to interpret these vague sentiments, we have enshrined these customs in law, and defined (some of) them explicitly, to provide protections of rights and enforcement of duties, which were not specifically included in the customs themselves.
If the state removed itself from this institution, and removed its protection of rights, and enforcement of duties, what effect might this have on families? We know that marriages end, and can end in very serious disagreement between partners. How would we arbitrate in such cases, without state involvement? Who would we trust to arbitrate such cases? The advantage of letting the state do so at least enables us to be involved, as citizens, in the rules under which arbitration would occur. The state is (somewhat) accountable to citizens, we can be involved in making these rules, and we can vote to repudiate the lawmakers. If arbitration belonged to institutions such as churches, casinos, malls etc, we would have to trust that they would do so justly, and we would have little chance to influence the creation or alteration of the rules. Admittedly, if we chose the institution in the first place, we would implicitly be agreeing to be bound by its decisions, and yet the rules could then be changed without our having any influence upon the process. If a law is changed, or a new law implemented, we can protest, we can lobby our lawmakers – we can be involved in the process. Another advantage of state involvement is that our courts are as impartial as we can make them (under our political systems), and by continuing to be citizens of our states, we all implicitly agree to be bound by the same rules as every other citizen. If we don’t like the rules, we can try and change them, or change the rule-makers at least, or even leave, and go somewhere where we agree with the rules.

So, whilst I may wish I could agree with the ‘third option’, as I do not approve of creeping state interference with individual’s lives, I agree and accept that there are advantages to the rule of law, and with allowing the state to arbitrate disagreements that cannot be solved by the parties involved. I also believe that the state, which (at least in some countries) has excluded certain factors from allowing it to affect its decisions, such as a person’s sex, race, religious belief, appearance, physical disability, personal wealth, etc, is therefore fairer and more just than individuals/institutions which have not agreed to such an exclusion.
I, personally, would prefer the state to judge me, than a religious institution, or a commercial organisation, because I trust the state to be more impartial, and to provide me with the same justice as any other citizen: I trust it not to discriminate as much as other organisations may.
Caveat: I do not believe that the state dispenses perfect justice and impartiality, but I do believe it is the least-worst option - as democracy is the least-worst form of government we know, it's institutions are likewise.

[Disclaimer: I am a Brit, so different rules apply...]
Permalink
daniel_t Avatar
daniel_t
Posts: 4
Posted: 08.04.09, 04:07 PM
nickw's assessment of the third option shows a complete misunderstanding of what it actually entails. Personally, I think that is why the third option isn't more popular.

Two people can be married but unless they also got "lawfully" married, they are not afforded any of the rights and protections he mentions. The third option consists of nothing more than striking the word "marriage" from legal documents and replacing it with the words "civil union". That's it... no radical change in the way we legally view people and their relationships toward each-other, just a simple global find and replace in a bunch of documents.

Then it is a simple matter of changing the law so that two people of the same sex can get a "civil union", something that most people in America support.
Permalink
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Please log in or register to post a comment.
Advertisement

Related Programs

Laurence H. Tribe: The Invisible Constitution Laurence H. Tribe: The Invisible Constitution
01:31:52 min | 4,635 Views
Jeffrey Toobin: Supreme Court Lecture Jeffrey Toobin: Supreme Court Lecture
01:00:18 min | 5,429 Views
Bong Hits 4 Jesus: What's Left of Student Free Speech? Bong Hits 4 Jesus: What's Left of Student Free Speech?
01:43:54 min | 4,177 Views
The Brian Lehrer Show at Aspen: Teddy, Barack, and John The Brian Lehrer Show at Aspen: Teddy, Barack, and John
00:57:28 min | 1,166 Views
The Profits of Pimping: Economics of Sex Trafficking The Profits of Pimping: Economics of Sex Trafficking
00:23:35 min | 625 Views

Browse Programs by Tag

Arts Books Climate Change Computing Conflict Credit Crunch Defense Democratization Economic Policy Education Election 2008 Emerging Markets Energy Entertainment Entrepreneurship Environment Film Food Globalization Health & Wellness Healthcare History Internet Investing Law Medicine Music Muslim World Natural Sciences New Media Personal Technology Philanthropy Religion Social Issues Social Sciences Sustainability Terrorism The Bailout U.S. Foreign Policy White House 2009

Advertisement