Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T07:32:06.823Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Religion, Rights, and Relationships: The Dream of Relational Equality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2020

Margaret Denike
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This essay provides an analysis of the terms by which the question of extending civil marriage to same-sex couples has been posed, advanced, and resisted in Canada and the United States in the past few years. Denike draws on feminist theories of justice to evaluate the strategies and approaches of initiatives to reform the laws governing the state's recognition—and lack thereof—of personal relationships of dependency and care. She also examines the political opposition to such reforms and the challenges posed for advancing human rights for gays and lesbians in the face of social and political prejudice against same-sex marriage.

Type
Research Article
Information
Hypatia , Volume 22 , Issue 1: Special Issue: Writing Against Heterosexism , Winter 2007 , pp. 71 - 91
Copyright
Copyright © 2007 by Hypatia, Inc.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Cossman, Brenda. 2005. Contesting conservatisms, family feuds, and the privatization of dependency. American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law 13:415.Google Scholar
Cossman, Brenda and Ryder, Bruce. 2001. What is marriage‐like like? The irrelevance of conjugality. 32 18: 269–326.Google Scholar
Canada, Egale. 2003. Submission to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. http://www.egale.ca/index.aspitem=35/amp;version=EN. Accessed October 2, 2006.Google Scholar
Eskridge, William Jr. 2001. The ideological structure of the same‐sex marriage debate (and some postmodern arguments for same‐sex marriage). In Legal recognition of same‐sex partnerships, ed. Wintemute, and Andenaes, .Google Scholar
Fella, Elizabeth. 2005. Playing catch up: Changing the bankruptcy code to accommodate America's growing number of non‐traditional couples. 32 37: 681–714.Google Scholar
Fineman, Martha. 2000. Cracking the foundational myths: Independence, autonomy, and self‐sufficiency. 32 8: 13–29.Google Scholar
Fraser, Nancy. 1997. Justice interruptus: Critical reflections on the ‘postsocialist’ condition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gallup International. 2004. Mother Jones (September/October): 26.Google Scholar
Gilles, Bob. 2005. Canada legalizes gay marriage. Tulsa World: Final Home Edition, July 21.Google Scholar
Hopkins, Patrick. 2000. Gender treachery. In Gender reader, 2nd ed., ed. Evelyn Ashton‐Jones, Gary Olson, and Perry, Merry G. Toronto: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Lahey, Kathleen A., and Alderson, Kevin. 2004. Same‐sex marriage: The personal and the political. Toronto: Insomniac Press.Google Scholar
Law Commission of Canada. 2001. Beyond conjugality: Recognizing and supporting close personal adult relationships. Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services.Google Scholar
MacDougall, Bruce. 2003. The separation of the church and the date: Destabilizing traditional religion‐based legal norms on sexuality. 32 36: 1–27.Google Scholar
Nedelsky, Jennifer. 1993. Reconceiving rights as relationships. 32 1: 1–26.Google Scholar
Martha C, Nussbaum. 1999. Sex and social justice. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Polikoff, Nancy. 2000. Why lesbians and gay men should read Martha Fineman. 32 8: 167–80.Google Scholar
Polikoff, Nancy. 2003. Conference on marriage, families, and democracy: Ending marriage as we know it. 32 32: 201–33.Google Scholar
Richards, David. 2001. Introduction: Theoretical perspectives. In Legal recognition of same‐sex partnerships, ed. Wintemute, and Andenaes, .Google Scholar
Rubin, Gayle. 1975. The traffic in women: Notes on the political economy of sex. In Feminist theory: A reader, ed. Kolmar, Wendy and Bartkowski, Frances. Toronto: Mayfield, 2000.Google Scholar
Ryder, Bruce, Faria, Cidalia C., and Lawrence, Emily. 2004. What's law good for? An empirical overview of the charter. Supreme Court Law Review (2d) 24: 103–36.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R. 2005. Homosexuality and the constitution. In Philosophical problems in the law, 4th ed., ed. Abrams, David. Toronto: Nelson.Google Scholar
Vatican, The Holy See. 2003. Congregation for the doctrine of the faith. Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual‐unions_en.html. Accessed October 2, 2006.Google Scholar
Walker, Kristen L. 2001. United Nations human rights law and same‐sex relationships: Where to from here? In Legal recognition of same‐sex partnerships, ed. Wintemute, and Andenaes, .Google Scholar
Wintemute, Robert. 2002. Religion vs. sexual orientation: A clash of human rights? 32 1: 125–51.Google Scholar
Wintemute, Robert, and Andenaes, Mads, eds. 2001. Legal recognition of same‐sex partnerships. Port land, Ore.: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Wojcik, Mark E. 2004. The wedding bells heard around the world: Years from now, will we wonder why we worried about same‐sex marriage? 32 24: 589–680.Google Scholar
Wolfson, Evan. 2001. The Hawaii marriage case launches the U.S. freedom‐to‐marry movement for equality. In Legal recognition of same‐sex partnerships, ed. Wintemute, and Andenaes, .Google Scholar
Young, Iris Marion. 1990. Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar