2018 | 56 |
Article title

On Unjust Forms of Marriage. Comments on the Discussion on Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples

Selected contents from this journal
Title variants
Languages of publication
This article defends the thesis that, in light of the postulates of liberal ethics, it is not possible to put forward universal arguments in support of any form of marriage. The existing forms of marriage should be either deemed unjust or founded on specific arguments recognized within a particular political community and determining the understanding of justice in a particular society. It defends the thesis that the requirement of universality, and consequently of impartiality, is not met, since behind every form of marriage there is a certain “minimum” anthropological approach. Marriage is discussed as a privilege granted to particular groups by the political community. The comments are made with reference to the discussion between Krzysztof Saja and Tomasz Sieczkowski concerning the problem of discrimination against same-sex couples in Polish legislation.
Physical description
  • Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University
  • Bailey M., Kaufman A.J. (2010), Polygamy in the Monogamous World. Multicultural Challenges for Western Law and Policy, Preager, Santa Barbara.
  • Brake E. (2012), Minimizing Marriage. Marriage, Morality, and the Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  • Bedi S. (2013), Beyond Race, Sex, and Sexual Orientation: Legal Equality without Identity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  • Brooks T. (2009), “The Problem with Polygamy,” Philosophical Topics 37 (2): 109–122.
  • Card C. (1996), “Against Marriage and Motherhood,” Hypatia 11 (3): 1–23.
  • Chambers C. (2013), “The Marriage-Free State,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 113 (2): 123–143.
  • Chambers C. (2016), “The Limitations of Contract: Regulating Personal Relationships in a Marriage-Free State,” [in:] After Marriage: Rethinking martial Relationships, E. Brake (ed.), Oxford University Press, Oxford: 51–83.
  • Dworkin R. (2008), Is Democracy Possible Here?, Principles for a New Political Debate, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
  • Emens E.F. (2004), “Monogamy’s Law: Compulsory Monogamy and Polyamorous Existence,” New York University Review of Law and Social Change 29 (2): 277-376.
  • Glendon M.A. (2002), A World Made New, Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Random House, New York.
  • Held V. (2006), The Ethics of Care: Personal, Political, Global, Oxford University Press, New York.
  • Henkin L. et al. (1999), Human Rights, Foundation Press, New York.
  • Jeffreys S. (2004), “The Need to Abolish Marriage,” Feminism and Psychology 14 (2): 327–331.
  • Macedo S. (2015), Just Married: Same-Sex Couples, Monogamy, and the Future of Marriage, Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford.
  • March A.F. (2011), “Is There a Right to Polygamy? Marriage, Equality and Subsidizing Families in Liberal Public Justification,” Journal of Moral Philosophy 8 (2): 246–272.
  • Mose J.R. (2006), “Why Unilateral Divorce Has No Place in a Free Society,” [in:] The Meaning of Marriage, R.P. George, J. Bethke Elshtain (ed.), Spence Publishing, Dallas: 74–99.
  • Rawls J. (1971/1999), A Theory of Justice: Revised Edition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge (MA).
  • Saja K. (2012), “O dyskryminacji par jednopłciowych,” Diametros 34: 92–115.
  • Saja K. (2013), “O dyskryminacji małżeństw homoseksualnych. Odpowiedź Tomaszowi Sieczkowskiemu,” Diametros 37: 193–209.
  • Sieczkowski T. (2013), “Jednak dyskryminacja. Odpowiedź Krzysztofowi Saji,” Diametros 36: 166–180.
  • Toerien M., Williams A. (2003), “In Knots: Dilemmas of a Feminist Couple Contemplating Marriage,” Feminism and Psychology 13 (4): 432–436.
Document Type
Publication order reference
YADDA identifier
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.