IS MARRIAGE A RIGHT? Matt Taylor replies to Mark Tardiff

Thanks to Mark and to others who have demonstrated that a traditional moral authority need not be sectarian. Mark suggests the founders of the United States; others have made reference to the philosophical theory of natural moral law. Personally, I find the argument from natural law more convincing since it is more universal, but both proposals are religiously neutral.

I must disagree with this part of Mark's argument:

"However, my contention is that if we start from an atheistic premise no defense of human rights is possible, so our original question no longer has any meaning."

This is a common argument of religious conservatives, that morality cannot be defined without a belief in God, and it is simply false as a matter of fact. You might find secular constructions of morality lacking in one way or another, but such moral systems do exist and millions of people live by them.

On the other hand, I completely agree with Mark regarding the Goodridge decision. As much as we homosexuals may enjoy the outcome, the court has overstepped its jurisdiction. The legal rights and privileges coincident with marriage are within the court's purview, but the institution of marriage itself, and the vocabulary we use to describe it, are artifacts of culture, not of law, and therefore should not be subject to judicial review. The power to define the culture belongs to the people, and cultural changes should be written into law only by the people through their elected representatives.
posted by Eve at 9:36 PM VOTE

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home