scholarly journals 儒家信仰與同性婚姻: 二者能否兼得？

2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 137-140
Author(s):  
Guangkuan XIE
Keyword(s):  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Digital Commons

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract in English only.This commentary discusses the problem of the ethical integrity of same-sex marriage raised by Fang. It argues that same-sex marriage does not necessarily have an ethical integrity problem: same-sex couples can be modern Confucians with no conflict with the fundamental doctrines of Confucianism.DOWNLOAD HISTORY | This article has been downloaded 83 times in Digital Commons before migrating into this platform.

scholarly journals 儒學、還是儒學自由主義？

2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 115-118
Author(s):  
Ruiping FAN
Keyword(s):  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Digital Commons ◽  
The Right

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract in English only.In providing his reasons for not objecting to the legalization of same-sex marriage, Professor Fang Xudong fully accepts a robust liberal dichotomy between the right and the good as well as the liberal principle of neutrality. This renders his Confucian reflection essentially liberal rather than authentically Confucian. It is ethically incoherent for him to claim that he does not object to the legalization of same-sex marriage although he believes same-sex couples cannot embody ethical integrity as heterosexual marriages do.DOWNLOAD HISTORY | This article has been downloaded 79 times in Digital Commons before migrating into this platform.

scholarly journals Democratic Values, Religiosity, and Support for Same-Sex Marriage in Latin America

2017 ◽  
Vol 59 (4) ◽  
pp. 75-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle L. Dion ◽  
Jordi Díez
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Latin America ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Capital City ◽  
Religious Values ◽  
Democratic Values ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Latin American Countries

AbstractLatin America has been at the forefront of the expansion of rights for same-sex couples. Proponents of same-sex marriage frame the issue as related to human rights and democratic deepening; opponents emphasize morality tied to religious values. Elite framing shapes public opinion when frames resonate with individuals’ values and the frame source is deemed credible. Using surveys in 18 Latin American countries in 2010 and 2012, this article demonstrates that democratic values are associated with support for same-sex marriage while religiosity reduces support, particularly among strong democrats. The tension between democratic and religious values is particularly salient for women, people who live outside the capital city, and people who came of age during or before democratization.

scholarly journals The Precarious Position of Same-Sex Divorce in Texas

2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 779-800
Author(s):  
Shawna M. Young
Keyword(s):  
Legal Issues ◽  
Courts Of Appeals ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Legal Remedy

Currently, same-sex couples that are legally married in a jurisdiction that recognizes same-sex marriage may not be able to divorce if they move to Texas. Of the few cases tried in Texas, most courts refused to grant the samesex divorce because the courts refused to recognize the underlying marriage. Because these couples cannot simply return to the granting state due to most states’ divorce residency requirements, they cannot divorce and face untold issues due to this inability. While Texas does offer the opportunity for the couple to declare the marriage void, declaring the marriage void is not an adequate legal remedy and may not prevent property and other legal issues. Instead, Texas should analyze divorce as implicating rights separate from those implicated by marriage. Based on such analysis, Texas should grant same-sex divorces. While several authors have addressed this issue from a national standpoint, this Comment addresses the issue as it stands in Texas, where a jurisdictional split between the courts of appeals makes it ripe for discussion.

The Same Difference: Protecting Same-Sex Couples under the Domestic Violence Ordinance

2009 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 1-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Puja Kapai
Keyword(s):  
Domestic Violence ◽  
Orientation Discrimination ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Sexual Orientation Discrimination ◽  
Civil Remedies ◽  
The Subject ◽  
International Human

AbstractHong Kong recently amended its Domestic Violence Ordinance (“DVO”). During the deliberations, the issue of whether protection under the DVO ought to be extended to same-sex couples arose for discussion and has since been the subject of extensive debate. Religious and conservative groups have argued that including these groups within the DVO risks overhauling the traditional meaning of “family” and could implicitly legitimize same-sex marriage whilst others have insisted that failing to provide equivalent civil remedies under the DVO to such groups amounts to sexual orientation discrimination and is contrary to Hong Kong's international human rights commitments. This paper reviews the various arguments that have been raised against the inclusion of same-sex couples within the DVO and argues that Hong Kong's international and constitutional commitments to the principles of equality and non-discrimination require that samesex couples be brought within the purview of this legislation.

scholarly journals 家庭與社會公義

2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 45-48
Author(s):  
Lawrence YUNG
Keyword(s):  
Social Justice ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Individual Autonomy ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Sexual Freedom ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
Digital Commons ◽  
The Family ◽  
Gender Neutrality ◽  
Heterosexual Marriage

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract in English only.Mark Cherry’s article identifies claims regarding individual autonomy, gender neutrality, and rights to sexual freedom as taking a commanding place within the secular liberal recasting of the family to grant same-sex marriage the same legal status as heterosexual marriage. Cherry refers to Plato’s proposal of abolishing family in Republic (Book V) as a precursor to reforming the family to engineer currently favored versions of social justice. This paper adds to the discussion on family and social justice with an explication of this proposal of abolishing family and a comparison with the Confucian ideal of Great Unity.DOWNLOAD HISTORY | This article has been downloaded 122 times in Digital Commons before migrating into this platform.

scholarly journals 也談同性戀與婚姻

2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 73-76
Author(s):  
Fei WU
Keyword(s):  
Same Sex ◽  
Ancient Greek ◽  
Marriage And Family ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
Greek Culture ◽  
Digital Commons ◽  
The Relationship

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract in English only.Xianglong Zhang’s position on same-sex marriage is tolerance with reservations. He contends that Confucianism does not affirm or deny homosexuality as ancient Greek culture or Christianity did, because it regards homosexuality and same-sex marriage as two completely separate issues. By distinguishing marriage from homosexuality, the Confucian view proposed by Zhang neither violates the freedom of homosexuals nor affects the order of marriage and family. It can provide a more sensible perspective for people to understand the relationship between homosexuality and marriage in today’s world.DOWNLOAD HISTORY | This article has been downloaded 192 times in Digital Commons before migrating into this platform.

scholarly journals 權利與善——論同性婚姻

2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 99-114
Author(s):  
Xudong FANG
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Equal Rights ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
Digital Commons ◽  
Reductio Ad Absurdum ◽  
Traditional Marriage ◽  
Heterosexual Marriage ◽  
The Ideal

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract also in English.本文由兩個部分構成，第一部分闡述了不反對同性婚姻合法化的理由，逐一討論了對同性婚姻合法化的五種反對意見，認為它們都不成立。第二部分論述了儒家推崇異性婚姻的原因，其主要考慮是同性婚姻不能像異性婚姻那樣可以提供倫理的完整性。作者強調，作為公民權利，同性婚姻可以被自由追求，但作為儒家則以異性婚姻為婚姻的理想模式。前者事關權利，後者事關“善”，有各自的界限，不得逾越。This paper consists of two parts. In the first part, the author refutes, one by one, five objections to the legalization of same-sex marriage, including arguments grounded in naturalness, origin, reductio ad absurdum, compromising traditional marriage, and Jiang Qing’s doctrine of particular human rights. The strongest reason for advocating the legalization of same-sex marriage is the doctrine of equal rights. As contemporary people, we have no reason to deny that all individuals have equal rights. The second part discusses why Confucianism prefers heterosexual marriage. The main consideration is that same-sex marriages cannot provide ethical integrity, as heterosexual marriages do. The author emphasizes that, as a civil right, same-sex marriage can be pursued freely, but for a Confucian, heterosexual marriage is the ideal mode of marriage. The former concerns what is “right,” whereas the latter relates to what is “good.” There is an insurmountable boundary between right and good.DOWNLOAD HISTORY | This article has been downloaded 423 times in Digital Commons before migrating into this platform.

Marriage: Obligations, Benefits, and Access

Just Married ◽  
2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Macedo
Keyword(s):  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Special Obligations ◽  
The Future ◽  
Opposite Sex ◽  
The Many

This chapter examines the many “legal incidents” of marriage: the specific benefits, responsibilities, obligations, and protections that are associated with marriage by law. While critics focus on the special privileges or benefits that spouses acquire in marriage, those are balanced by special obligations. The chapter suggests that the whole package seems reasonably appropriate for both opposite-sex and same-sex couples. It also considers the ways in which marriage seems to promote the good of spouses, children, and society, along with the class divide that now characterizes marriage and parenting. It argues that this class divide, not same-sex marriage, is the great challenge for the future.

Marriage Equality, Public Accommodations Laws, and Religious Exercise

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Gluck Mezey
Keyword(s):  
First Amendment ◽  
Religious Beliefs ◽  
Business Owners ◽  
The State ◽  
Marriage Equality ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
Free Exercise ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Antidiscrimination Law

Opposition to same-sex marriage in the United States is frequently based on the religious belief that marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman. With most of the attention focused on wedding vendors, the clash between religious liberty and marriage equality has largely manifested itself in efforts by business owners, such as photographers, florists, caterers, and bakers, to deny their services to same-sex couples celebrating their marriages. Citing state antidiscrimination laws, the couples demand the owners treat them as they do their other customers. Owners of public accommodations (privately owned business open to the public) who object to facilitating the weddings of same-sex couples do so typically by asserting their personal religious beliefs as defenses when charged with violating such laws; they argue that they would view their participation (albeit indirect) in wedding ceremonies as endorsing same-sex marriage. As the lawsuits against them began to proliferate, the business owners asked the courts to shield them from liability for violating the laws prohibiting discrimination because of sexual orientation in places of public accommodation. They cited their First Amendment right to the free exercise of their religion and their right not to be compelled to speak, that is, to express a positive message about same-sex marriage. With conflicts between same-sex couples and owners of business establishments arising in a number of states, the focus of the nation’s attention was on a New Mexico photographer, a Washington State florist, and a Colorado baker, each of whom sought an exemption from their state’s antidiscrimination law to enable them to exercise their religious tenets against marriage equality. In these cases, the state human rights commissions and the state appellate courts ruled that the antidiscrimination laws outweighed the rights of the business owners to exercise their religious beliefs against marriage equality by refusing to play a role, no matter how limited, in a same-sex marriage ceremony. In June 2018, in Masterpiece Cakeshop, LTD. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the state’s antidiscrimination law that guaranteed equal treatment for same-sex couples in places of public accommodations but reversed the Commission’s ruling against the Colorado baker. In a narrow decision, the Court held that the Commission infringed on the baker’s First Amendment right to free exercise by uttering comments that, in the Court’s view, demonstrated hostility to his sincerely held religious beliefs. The ruling affirmed that society has a strong interest in protecting gay men and lesbians from harm as they engage in the marketplace as well as in respecting sincerely held religious beliefs.

scholarly journals SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND THE SAME OLD CONSTITUTION*

2011 ◽  
Vol 14 (2 & 3) ◽  
pp. 2005
Author(s):  
Ronalda Murphy
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Social Institution ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Political Debate ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
Political Issues ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Do So

The Reference re Same-Sex Marriage1 is not a major opinion on the rights of same-sex couples in Canada, but it is nonetheless an important and fascinating case. There are only a few lines that are about the “rights” of same-sex couples. Did the Supreme Court of Canada “duck” the issue? Was the Court carefully gauging how much or little political capital it had and making a political decision to say as little as possible on this topic? The Court certainly displayed strategic brilliance, but it did not do so in the name of avoiding the “political” hot topic of same-sex marriage. It is factually difficult to maintain the view that the Supreme Court of Canada is loath to enter into this political debate. It has been the lead social institution in Canada in terms of responding to the claims of gays and lesbians to equality in law,2 and it has never been shy of dealing with topics simply because they involve controversial political issues.3 Rather, the Court’s brilliance lies in its minimalist and almost weary tone. This approach had the effect of taking the wind out of the sails of those opposed to same-sex marriage: the same-sex advocates definitely win the constitutional race, but they do so because according to the Supreme Court, there is no provincial constitutional headwind that can stop them. In short, provinces can complain all they want about the federal position in favour of same-sex marriage, but the wedding will go on despite and over their objections to the ceremony.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document