by Scott Yenor, Ph.D, is a political philosophy professor at Boise State University, and author of the book, Family Politics: The Idea of Marriage in Modern Political Thought.
This article was first published at thepublicdiscourse.com on October 2, 2012.
A new argument that reduces marriage to any consensual caring relationship is grounded by a cynical view of human nature that we ought not accept.
Elizabeth Brake?s Minimizing Marriage breaks new ground in the contemporary liberal critique of traditional arrangements. The object of her critique is what she calls amatonormativity-the belief that society should value two-person, amorous love relationships. Even same-sex marriage (SSM) advocates are too restrictive for Brake in that they would confer benefits on two people alone; SSM advocates are unwitting amatonormativists. Their defenses of marriage leave out ?urban tribes, best friends, quirkyalones, polyamorists? and other diverse groups united by a common bond of caring. Brake argues for an almost complete disestablishment of marriage.
Brake?s argument for minimal marriage is both destructive and constructive. Rather than propose that we abolish marriage, Brake contends that we free ourselves of any demand that marriage have an approved form. Yet Brake?s minimal marriage does not abolish the function of marriage, though she thins out that function considerably. After attacking traditional normative beliefs about marriage, she constructs a new vision of marriage as an institution that fulfills, broadly speaking, the function of caring. States, in her view, should recognize and provide benefits to caring relationships.
The destructive facet of Brake?s argument is pretty standard contemporary liberal fare. She holds two trump cards, and she plays them whenever she seeks to show that the institution of marriage is not really about children, procreation, amorous love or whatever one might think marriage is about. The first trump card is to show that things that seem connected are not really connected. It may appear, for instance, that marriage and procreation are connected, but, Brake argues, that connection is obviously illusory because some married couples do not procreate; some married couples adopt; and some people conceive children outside of marriage. Enough counterexamples can be piled up to show that the connection which people have long thought central to marriage is not really central.
The same disconnecting thoughts dissolve the idea that ??marriage involves sexual intimacy, economic and domestic cooperation, and a voluntary mutual commitment to sustaining this relationship.? These are the characteristics that some SSM advocates put at the heart of their argument about marriage?s purpose. Brake one-ups this characterization. Might these characteristics be holdovers ?from an institution now irrelevant to many citizens? relationships?? she asks. Don?t close platonic friends or roommates often share finances? Three?s company and four is also, perhaps, when it comes to domestic cooperation or, perhaps, sexual intimacy. If these characteristics define marriage, marriage can, once again, move from bilateral to multilateral relations.
Brake follows this argument to its logical conclusion. Consent and consent alone is the ground for legitimate marriage. ?Adult siblings and first cousins? can marry. Presumably parents can marry their children once the children have reached the age of consent. ?Marrying one?s dog,? however, ?is a nonstarter,? for canines are not able to consent. Lest one think that she is a ?speciesist,? Brake concedes that should dogs develop an ability to consent through evolutionary processes, she will have to revisit this question and confer the proper rights to man?s best friend.
Keep reading.
Source: http://www.ruthblog.org/2012/10/08/toward-a-less-minimal-marriage/
mlk mlk school closures being human being human chicago news chicago news
No comments:
Post a Comment