|
Showing 1 - 6 of
6 matches in All Departments
Although the debate over same-sex marriage in the United States has
ended, no one seems to know what lies on the horizon. The
conversation about what marriage could be like in the future is no
longer confined to academics. In his dissent in Obergefell, Chief
Justice Roberts linked the constitutionally-mandated legal
recognition of same-sex marriage to the possibility that states may
also have to recognize multi-person intimate relationships as well
to avoid discriminating against plural marriage enthusiasts. The
popularity of television shows like TLC's Sister Wives and HBO's
Big Love suggests that Americans no longer can be dismissive of the
possibility that in the foreseeable future, marriage could, and
perhaps should, look very different than it does today. Rather than
settling the question of whether states ought to abolish marriage,
make it more inclusive, contractual, or call it something else,
this book exposes readers to some of the normative, legal, and
empirical questions that Americans must address before they can
deliberate thoughtfully about whether to keep the marital status
quo where monogamy remains privileged. Unlike much of the debate
over same-sex marriage, they exchange reasons with one another as
they discuss marital reform. This book is for ordinary Americans,
their elected representatives, and judges, to help them ultimately
decide whether they want to continue to define marriage so
narrowly, make it more inclusive to avoid discrimination, or have
the state leave the marriage business. This edited,
interdisciplinary volume contains eight original contributions, all
of which illuminate important but often neglected areas of the
topic.
Although the debate over same-sex marriage in the United States has
ended, no one seems to know what lies on the horizon. The
conversation about what marriage could be like in the future is no
longer confined to academics. In his dissent in Obergefell, Chief
Justice Roberts linked the constitutionally-mandated legal
recognition of same-sex marriage to the possibility that states may
also have to recognize multi-person intimate relationships as well
to avoid discriminating against plural marriage enthusiasts. The
popularity of television shows like TLC's Sister Wives and HBO's
Big Love suggests that Americans no longer can be dismissive of the
possibility that in the foreseeable future, marriage could, and
perhaps should, look very different than it does today. Rather than
settling the question of whether states ought to abolish marriage,
make it more inclusive, contractual, or call it something else,
this book exposes readers to some of the normative, legal, and
empirical questions that Americans must address before they can
deliberate thoughtfully about whether to keep the marital status
quo where monogamy remains privileged. Unlike much of the debate
over same-sex marriage, they exchange reasons with one another as
they discuss marital reform. This book is for ordinary Americans,
their elected representatives, and judges, to help them ultimately
decide whether they want to continue to define marriage so
narrowly, make it more inclusive to avoid discrimination, or have
the state leave the marriage business. This edited,
interdisciplinary volume contains eight original contributions, all
of which illuminate important but often neglected areas of the
topic.
With over half of Americans now in favor of marriage equality, it
is clear that societal norms of marriage are being quickly
redefined. The growing belief that the state may not discriminate
against gays and lesbians calls into question whether the state may
limit other types of marital unions, including plural marriage.
While much has been written about same-sex marriage, as of yet
there has been no book-length legal treatment of unions among three
or more individuals. The first major study on plural marriage and
the law, In Defense of Plural Marriage begins to fill this lacuna
in the scholarly literature. Ronald C. Den Otter shows how the
constitutional arguments that support the option of plural marriage
are stronger than those against. Ultimately, he proposes a new
semi-contractual marital model that would provide legal recognition
for a wide range of intimate relationships.
With over half of Americans now in favor of marriage equality, it
is clear that societal norms of marriage are being quickly
redefined. The growing belief that the state may not discriminate
against gays and lesbians calls into question whether the state may
limit other types of marital unions, including plural marriage.
While much has been written about same-sex marriage, as of yet
there has been no book-length legal treatment of unions among three
or more individuals. The first major study on plural marriage and
the law, In Defense of Plural Marriage begins to fill this lacuna
in the scholarly literature. Ronald C. Den Otter shows how the
constitutional arguments that support the option of plural marriage
are stronger than those against. Ultimately, he proposes a new
semi-contractual marital model that would provide legal recognition
for a wide range of intimate relationships.
Americans cannot live with judicial review, but they cannot live
without it. There is something characteristically American about
turning the most divisive political questions - like freedom of
religion, same-sex marriage, affirmative action and abortion - into
legal questions with the hope that courts can answer them. In
Judicial Review in an Age of Moral Pluralism Ronald C. Den Otter
addresses how judicial review can be improved to strike the
appropriate balance between legislative and judicial power under
conditions of moral pluralism. His defense of judicial review is
predicated on the imperative of ensuring that the reasons that the
state offers on behalf of its most important laws are consistent
with the freedom and equality of all persons. Den Otter ties this
defense to a theory of constitutional adjudication based on John
Rawls's idea of public reason and argues that a law that is not
sufficiently publicly justified is unconstitutional, thus
addressing when courts should invalidate laws and when they should
uphold them even in the midst of reasonable disagreement about the
correct outcome in particular constitutional controversies.
Americans cannot live with judicial review, but they cannot live
without it. There is something characteristically American about
turning the most divisive political questions - like freedom of
religion, same-sex marriage, affirmative action and abortion - into
legal questions with the hope that courts can answer them. In
Judicial Review in an Age of Moral Pluralism Ronald C. Den Otter
addresses how judicial review can be improved to strike the
appropriate balance between legislative and judicial power under
conditions of moral pluralism. His defense of judicial review is
predicated on the imperative of ensuring that the reasons that the
state offers on behalf of its most important laws are consistent
with the freedom and equality of all persons. Den Otter ties this
defense to a theory of constitutional adjudication based on John
Rawls's idea of public reason and argues that a law that is not
sufficiently publicly justified is unconstitutional, thus
addressing when courts should invalidate laws and when they should
uphold them even in the midst of reasonable disagreement about the
correct outcome in particular constitutional controversies.
|
|