Right-to ___ -OR- Right-to-Choose-to ___?
Rereading the Massachusetts "Gay Marriage Case" (Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003)), I've encountered a sentence that strikes me as being rather peculiar, even absent a discussion of the merits of the case:
"Without the right to marry -- or more properly, the right to choose to marry -- one is excluded from the full range of human experience and denied full protection of the laws for one's 'avowed commitment to an intimate and lasting human relationship.'"
Regardless of the issue raising a question fundamental rights--be it marriage, voting, or travel, I find this wording rather odd. Clearly, the rhetoric employed is very carefully chosen; this is not only apparent upon reading, but is expressly indicated ("or more properly..."). But, isn't a right always alternatively, yet equally, expressed as a right to choose to? If not, then the so-called right is not really a right at all, but an obligation. Surely no one involved in this case actually thought that marriage is obligatory to all citizens of a state! Surely we aren't required to bear arms!
"Without the right to marry -- or more properly, the right to choose to marry -- one is excluded from the full range of human experience and denied full protection of the laws for one's 'avowed commitment to an intimate and lasting human relationship.'"
Regardless of the issue raising a question fundamental rights--be it marriage, voting, or travel, I find this wording rather odd. Clearly, the rhetoric employed is very carefully chosen; this is not only apparent upon reading, but is expressly indicated ("or more properly..."). But, isn't a right always alternatively, yet equally, expressed as a right to choose to? If not, then the so-called right is not really a right at all, but an obligation. Surely no one involved in this case actually thought that marriage is obligatory to all citizens of a state! Surely we aren't required to bear arms!
Categories: