Dworkinian Liberalism & Gay Rights: a Defense of Same-Sex Relations
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Georgia State University ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University Philosophy Theses Department of Philosophy 4-30-2010 Dworkinian Liberalism & Gay Rights: A Defense of Same-Sex Relations Ngoc Quang H. Bui Georgia State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/philosophy_theses Part of the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Bui, Ngoc Quang H., "Dworkinian Liberalism & Gay Rights: A Defense of Same-Sex Relations." Thesis, Georgia State University, 2010. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/philosophy_theses/71 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Philosophy at ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Philosophy Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DWORKINIAN LIBERALISM & GAY RIGHTS: A DEFENSE OF SAME-SEX RELATIONS by NGOC QUANG H. BUI Under the Direction of Andrew Altman ABSTRACT Recent changes in the politics of gay rights have led to a gay rights demand for liberal governments: i) decriminalization of sodomy and ii) full governmental recognition of civil, same-sex marriages. Challengers to liberalism argue that a neutral liberalism cannot satisfy the gay rights demand. I argue that the liberal political framework put forth by Ronald Dworkin can adequately fulfill the gay rights demand. Dworkinian liberalism, which is neutral with respect to the ethical life, need not be neutral with respect to moral and non-ethical values. I argue for the more modest claim that Dworkinian li- beralism has the conceptual tools and principles for satisfying the gay rights demand. In arguing for my claim, I discuss the internal criticisms of Carlos Ball and Michael Sandel and the external criti- cism of John Finnis. I argue that these concerns are surmountable. Dworkinian liberalism is capable of offering a robust defense of same-sex relations. INDEX WORDS: Ronald Dworkin, Michael Sandel, Carlos Ball, John Finnis, Same-sex marriages, Gay rights, Neutral liberalism, Gay rights demand, Political philosophy, Principles of human dignity, Abstract egalitarian principle, Equal concern and respect, Sexuality and the law DWORKINIAN LIBERALISM & GAY RIGHTS: A DEFENSE OF SAME-SEX RELATIONS by NGOC QUANG H. BUI A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in the College of Arts and Sciences Georgia State University 2010 Copyright by Ngoc Quang H. Bui 2010 DWORKINIAN LIBERALISM & GAY RIGHTS: A DEFENSE OF SAME-SEX RELATIONS by NGOC QUANG H. BUI Committee Chair: Andrew Altman Committee: Christie Hartley Andrew I. Cohen Electronic Version Approved: Office of Graduate Studies College of Arts and Sciences Georgia State University August 2010 iv DEDICATION To my mother, my constant supporter, & to Richy, my motivator. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My sincerest acknowledge goes to my very first mentor in philosophy, Nico Silins. As a pro- fessor, Nico was able to spark my deepest interest in philosophy. He was first to make me realize the pleasures of philosophy. Professor Sandra Dwyer has also been a constant mentor during my gradu- ate studies at Georgia State University. She has always been there, listening attentively about the ideas and concepts stemming from my burgeoning philosophical mind. Her advice and insights has always been a guiding force throughout my graduate years. I would also like to give acknowledge- ment to Professor Andrew Altman, who has the incredible talent of making lucid the oftentimes tangled up ideas and arguments in my mind. Constantly throughout my thesis research, drafting and defense, he was always ready and available to give advice. Finally, I would like to thank Professors Christie Hartley and Andrew I. Cohen. Their comments and concerns have been invaluable. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................................... v INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1 CHAPTER 1: THE POLITICS OF GAY RIGHTS ............................................................................. 4 (A) SOME PRELIMINARY COMMENTS & CONCEPTUAL DISTINCTIONS .................................................. 7 CHAPTER 2: DWORKINIAN LIBERALISM ................................................................................... 11 (A) TWO PRINCIPLES OF HUMAN DIGNITY .............................................................................................. 12 (B) THE ROLE OF A LIBERAL GOVERNMENT ........................................................................................... 17 i. Principle of Equal Concern and Respect. ................................................................................................... 17 ii. Ethical, Moral & Non-Ethical Values................................................................................................... 23 iii. Liberty, Neutrality and Equality. ........................................................................................................... 30 CHAPTER 3: CHALLENGES TO A LIBERAL THEORY OF GAY RIGHTS ...................... 34 (A) INTERNAL CRITICISMS ........................................................................................................................... 34 i. Liberal Neutrality & the Principle of Toleration ....................................................................................... 35 ii. Perfectionist Liberalism ............................................................................................................................ 40 (B) EXTERNAL CRITICISMS .......................................................................................................................... 45 i. New Natural Law Theory ........................................................................................................................ 46 CHAPTER 4: RESPONDING TO THE CRITICS .......................................................................... 54 (A) REPLIES TO THE INTERNAL CRITICISMS ............................................................................................. 55 i. Toleration Revisited ................................................................................................................................... 56 ii. Perfectionist Liberalism Revisited.............................................................................................................. 60 (B) REPLIES TO THE EXTERNAL CRITICISM .............................................................................................. 68 i. The Good of Marriage............................................................................................................................... 69 ii. Dworkinian Interpretation of the Marital Good ....................................................................................... 79 CONCLUSORY REMARKS ..................................................................................................................... 88 1 INTRODUCTION Justice Sandra Day O‟Connor is credited with having said that the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) community‟s struggle for equal citizenship is the civil rights movement of the 21st century.1 I am in agreement with Justice O‟Connor. The current political climate in the Unit- ed States is ripe for social reform. The topic of gay marriage was front and center in the 2004 presi- dential elections.2 Deep divides in religious, political and ethical ideals drove many people to the polls, which resulted in 13 states amending their constitution to ban same-sex marriages.3 Since the 2008 elections, however, the gay community, which was once deemed a pariah of society, is making great strides in gaining governmental protection for its members. In his first State of the Union ad- dress to the American people, President Obama expressed his desire to repeal Don‟t Ask, Don‟t Tell (DADT). Recently both Admiral Mike Mullen and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates testified be- fore a congressional hearing to repeal DADT. Clearly, the times are changing. Given the recent de- velopments in our political culture, the question emerges whether the rights normally demanded by the LGBT community can be defended from the traditional, neutral liberal standpoint. How long can certain liberal ideas like the right to privacy and tolerance sustain a rigorous defense of same-sex relations, especially when persons involved in these relations are beginning to ask for public recogni- tion? The issue made explicit in the above question is the focus of this paper. How can a society that avows by liberal principles guarantee full, equal rights to members of the LGBT community? Many detractors of both the gay rights movement and liberalism have criticized the liberal as being 1 H.N. Hirsch, The Future of Gay Rights in America (New York: Routledge, 2005). 2 Gregory B. Lewis, “Same-Sex Marriage and the 2004 Presidential Election,” Political Science & Politics 38, no. 02 (2005): 195-199. 3 Ibid., 195. 2 too neutral on the gay rights issue.4 If their criticisms are true, then liberalism as a political doctrine becomes a quagmire for gay rights supporters. It is my belief, however, that liberalism can offer a robust defense of same-sex relations. I will attempt to show how a liberal can endorse gay rights ful- ly – without internal inconsistencies. In particular, I focus