constitutional law. she taught for 20 years at harvard and brown and is now the distinguished professor of law and ethics at the university of chicago. she divides her time between the philosophy department, divinity school, the law school and if that were not enough also the department of south asian studies and also the human rights program. she is a world expert on virtue ethics and is written and taught extensively on the emotions in the ancient epics of sexuality, international development, fundamentalist hinduism and the emotions of shame and disgust as they relate to constitutional law. this is a topic she picks up once more in this most recent book which is the part of oxford university press's in a new label right series. she appears on lists of top 100 intellectuals which probably would not surprise you in this pastor was supported the american philosophical society's henry m. phillips price in jurisprudence. she also has the distinction of being a sort of philosopher who seems not to have lost sight of

philosophy of her school, which is to be good. thank you or besser nussbaum for coming. [applause] ..

the teenagers themselves. for a long time our society like many others has confronted same six orientations and act with politics of discussed as many people react to the uncomfortable presence of gays and lesbians with a deeper version akin to that often inspired by slimy insects, spoiled food and then the site that very reaction to support a range of legal restrictions from saw the need laws to the ban on same-sex marriage. partisans of politics discussed can barely stand to think about what that teenager did with his friends they say that stuff makes me want to throw up and they turn away from the reality of a life as from a loan some contaminant to the body politic.

although this political approach has lost a lot of ground in the recent years it continues to influence the ways in which many people think. discussed so describe seems pretty nasty of the fundamental refusal of another person's humanity. one might therefore just think it is obvious that it is a bad basis for all making in the pluralist society. discussed, however, has had a highly respectable influential defenders in the wall. in britain in the 1950's but patrick devlin argued very prominently but the disgust of an average member of society was a sufficient reason to make a practice illegal even if it was consensual and caused no harm to dimond and sending third parties. he was writing directly in response to the commission's recommendation to decriminalize same sex continual acts which he strongly opposed. he argued society would decay

from eckert them if they did not meet the law in response to the majority feelings of disgust. more recently, in the u.s. wheat and castle until recently was the head of the president's counsel for bioethics under president bush argued that repugnance has an inherent wisdom. he said it was a device implanted in the nature that steers us away from destructive and terrible choices. like def wim, he concludes discussed is a sufficient reason to ban the practice causes no harm to mom consenting parties nor are these positions only academic, they are in tune with widespread social forces. in recent years large segments of the christian right openly practice politics based upon discussed depicting the practices of lesbians and i think perhaps the specially of gay men as a file and revolting. they suggest such practices contaminate and defile society

producing social decay and degeneration. like casts and devlin they seem to believe discussed is a reliable guide to lawmaking although the influence of those appeals peaked perhaps in the 1980's and 1990's and has been a little bit declining the politics of discussed continues to exercise influence often in more subtle and underground ways. so we need to understand why it's not a good approach to politics and law in a space society. to begin with the politics of discussed is profoundly at odds with abstract ideas of a society based on the equality of all citizens and which all have a right to equal protection of the law. it says that the reason you inspire some pretty strong emotions in me is reason enough for me to seek the aid of all to treat you as a social pariah denying in your basic entitlement as a citizen.

even u.s. supreme court held in a romer versus evans that legal difference to this type of animus but as they put it violates the very idea of the equal protection of law in its most basic and general form. it also violates a fundamental paradigm of political rationality. all made in response to such animus' lack they said rational basis. despite such legal setbacks in recent years the politics of discussed and as i say is alive and well in america as groups often put forward of their arguments on the surface but when you press than you will see this in a minute with same-sex marriage the politics were discussed ultimately reveals its hand so i think a closer study of the motion of disgust and the way in which it's been used publicly through history help us understand what's going on and suggest very powerful arguments

against discussed in theory and practice by showing how that emotion express's the universal human discomfort with the bodily reality but then uses that discomfort to target and subordinate vulnerable minorities. and i use often parallels to misogyny and the history of the role played by discussed and ideals of contamination in american races to make my case. now, discussed today has to opponents each increasingly powerful in our social, political and legal life respect and sympathy. the idea of equal respect surely a key concept through the history of american democracy combined with high valuation of personal liberty suggests to many citizens even when they don't think well of someone's intimate personal choices they should give them space so long as they don't violate other

people's rights. such a politics of equal respect and equal liberty has long been the norm in the area of religion. they were used to the idea we live under terms of equal respect with people whose choice is we think of very good or perhaps even sinful and to the related ideas such deeply meaningful personal choices require the protection for all and on the basis of equality of spheres of personal liberty. the object of respect is the person, not the person's actions, but respecting one's fellow citizens as equal a long tradition holds requires seeing them as juicers and seekers who need a wide area of liberty around them whether they use the liberty from poorly so long as they don't trample on the rights of others. many people and i include sexual orientation has similar characteristics come could with a search for a meaningful life

and therefore abridgement or legal restriction inflects profound, to the very idea of citizens equality and equal respect precludes the infliction of such limitations on those who simply seek to act on their desire without violating the rights of others. it politics of equal respect is also by now the norm in the areas of gender, race and the disability where we gradually have come to see the deep-seeded characteristics are not a legitimate basis for the systematic subordination of a group. many durell feel once again sexual orientation is an important way like these other areas. like race and gender sexual orientation is a deep-seeded characteristic that has profound meaning for people affecting their possibilities for self expression and happiness which should not be turned into a system of social inequality. equal respect for citizens hold requires not converting a person's sexual orientation into

a reason for denying them a wide range of political entitlements on the basis of equality. any more than a person's race or gender or disability would be such a reason. now that d teenager needs and deserves equal respect and the fear of liberty equal to that enjoyed by others before he is likely to get goethes things, however, something else also has to be present in the world as his own perceptive comment suggested. the capacity to imagine his experience, and that of other gay and lesbian citizens. discussed feeds on the moral obtuseness. it's possible to fuel another human being as a slimy slugs or piece of resulting trash only if one has never made a serious good-faith attempt to see the world through the person's eyes or experience that person's feelings. humanity does not automatically bring philosophe to strangers camano placard hung on the front

of a fellow citizen announces this is a full-fledged human being or a bug or piece of refuse. seeing the shape of a human being before us we always have choices to make. will we include full equal humanity to the sheep were something less. only by imagining how will it might look through that person's highest does one get to the point of seeing the other person as a someone and not something that crucial measure and a disengagement has been sadly and sorely lacking in the majority dealings with lesbian and gay lives and the sounds like that is far from the law but i argue in the book is it is the of 2-cd imagination is a key feature in some of the bad legal decisions of this area. i think the transition from the worst versus hartwick where days were seen as a class apart who had nothing in common with what street people see and on the other hand lawrence versus kansas where there was an

ability to imagine that these are shared pursuits of something of considerable importance is really just the transition in imagination. so, what the book does is begins by investigating the discussed and with the politics of discussed is like, how it's worked in the different areas of social life but then i turned systematically to the different areas of constitutional law. first of all the history of sodomy, the syndication in hours, final overthrow and florence but then the on quiddity of where we are after lawrence which i think was very unclear lee argued. and i turn to the whole area of anti-discrimination and to the colorado conflict on which i actually played a part as an expert witness in romer versus evans the issue was whether the state, the referendum could pass a law we that forbid citizens to

seek equal protection for gay and lesbian citizens and the landmark supreme court romer versus evans was the one that referred to animus and repudiated the politics of animus. by introducing six marriage and i guinn to talk about that now and in a final chapter, i talk about public sex, sex clubs and the whole question of what the private public distinction that confusions that's foisted upon us and thinking well about the whole issue of six outside the home. okay. any of those things i would be glad to talk about in the discussion. but now same-sex marriage. i want to talk about the arguments against and why i think they don't add up to very much. as we examine the arguments against same-sex marriage a thing we have to keep to questions in mind. first, does each argument really

justify illegal restriction of same-sex marriage for everyone or only some attitudes of disapproval? we live in a country in which people have a wide range of different religious beliefs and we agree as i said in respecting the space of which people pursue those beliefs. we do not, however, agreed was believes in and of themselves are sufficient ground for ttypit some arguments, including some, not all, moral arguments are public arguments bearing on the lives of all citizens in a decent society and others are in charge of religious arguments, thus orthodox jews, the eating of pork and certainly don't want to do it but few if any would think that this religious apportions is to make heating of porky bickel for everyone. the prohibition rests on

religious texts that not all religions in recent can't even be translated into a public argument the people of all religions could accept. similarly, in the case of same-sex marriage i think we need to ask whether the arguments against same-sex marriage are expressed in a new natural language or in a doctrinal language. if the arguments are moral arguments rather than just textual arguments, they start to look better but we still have to ask whether they are compatible with core values of a society that is dedicated to giving all the equal protection of the law. many glass texas history of racial and gender discrimination were defended by what looked like secular moral arguments but that didn't insulate them from the constitution scrutiny. second, we have to ask whether each argument justifies its conclusion or whether there is reason to see the argument as a rationalization of some deeper sort of version were animists.

all right. the first and most common objection to same-sex marriages that it is in the oral and elma natural. similar arguments were widespread in the antimiscegenation debate and in most cases they are typically made in a secretary in and doctrinal way. antimiscegenation judges for example referred to the will of god and keeping the races apart and that was said by judges and court cases. they argued racial mixing is against the will of god. but it's difficult to cast such arguments in a form that could be accepted by citizens whose religious teaching is different. they look like a jewish arguments against the eating of pork. good reasons for the members of some religions not to engage in sing six marriage but not sufficient reasons to make it be legal for all citizens in a pluralistic society. the second objection and perhaps it is the one that is most often heard today from a thoughtful people insists the main purpose

of state sanctified marriages procreation and the children. protecting the institution does serves that important purpose is a legitimate public interest, and so the argument goes there's a legitimate public interest in supporting potentially procreative marriages. now of course it's still already there's a problem because we don't see why it should also follow that there is also a public interest in restricting marriage to only those cases where they may be procreation. and of course we should agree the procreation and the children is an important public purpose. but it's just not clear that we've ever felt that imports and purpose best served by restricting marriage to the procreative. if we ever did things like this we certainly haven't done anything about it three we've never limited marriage to the fertile or the potential fertile. it's very difficult in terms of the state's interest in procreation to explain why the marriage of to heterosexual

70-year-olds should be permitted and the marriage of two men were to women should be forbidden. all the more same sex couples half and raise children. as it stands then, the procreation argument looks to faced approving and heterosexuals what it refuses to tolerate in same-sex couples. if the argument should add still throw sexual marriages somehow support the efforts of the procreative we can certainly replied that lesbian and gay couples who don't happen to have to raise children may also support the work of the other couples. sometimes the argument is put a little differently. marriage it goes is about the protection of children, and we all know that children do best at home with one another and one father. so the conclusion there is a legitimate public interest in supporting an institution that fulfills this important purpose put this way then, the argument

again puts forward a legitimate public reason to restrict same-sex marriage namely the interest in protecting children. its main problem, however, is with the facts. again and again, psychological studies have shown that children do best when they have love and support and there is some evidence that two-parent households do better at that job the in single-parent households for obvious reasons of economic stress. there is no evidence, however, at all that same-sex couples do any worse than opposite sex couples. there is a widespread feeling those results can be right living in an immoral atmosphere must be done for children but that feeling rests on the religious judgments of the first argument and the wellbeing of children is assessed in a religiously neutral way there is absolutely no difference. a third argument is that by

conferring state approval is something many people believe to be immoral and unnatural. same-sex marriage will force them to bless or approve of it thus violating their conscience. now this one has actually been put forward by a very reputable and a few quick edible professor charles fried of the harvard law school and an otherwise very fine book called modern of liberty and which he argues eloquently against sodomy laws, argues passionately force years of people but he draws the line that same-sex marriage because of this idea that he has about unforced approval. well, what precisely is the argument? he doesn't suggest recognition of same-sex marriage would constitute a violation of the free exercise clause of the first amendment and that i think would be a totally impossible position to take presumably than his position is somehow or another of the state has a

legitimate interest in banning same-sex marriage on the ground. but this argument contains difficulties. first it raises an obvious establishment clause problem because religion vary greatly in their gratitude to same-sex marriage and religion on judaism performance in six marriage for many years as does conservative judaism and there's a wide variation. so the state following the argument would be siding with one group of believers against another. more generally there's lots of things a modern state does that many people deeply dislike and often they cite religious grounds. public education teaches things many religious parents don't like such as the theory of evolution and equality of women. parents often bring that to court but typically they lose because these are essential

values for the society. public health regulations, license cultures and come up pigs for human consumption and jews don't want to be assisted with that practice that nobody believes them and they have to ask a state to impose their religious or ground objection and opponents don't let their children to attend public school past age 40 and holding it is destructive of community and the state respect that to place four amish children. the state even also amish children to break the law that to the school past age 14 but no one would dream of thinking the amish have a right to peccadillo the state would end at 14. part of a pluralistic society that values donato establishment of religion is an attitude of live and let live. whenever we see a nation that does allow the imposition of a religiously grounded preference

on all citizens as with some israeli laws limiting activities on the sabbath and as with laws in india than in the slaughter of house we see a nation with a religious establishment whether it is defacto. we've chosen not to take that route and i think quite wisely so through the extent we often choose work days, holidays and so long that coincide with religious preferences of the majority we've been over backwards to be sensitive to the burdens this may create for minorities. as we don't think that his argument works and i think it is quite revealing that right in this part of his book he does mention the issue of discuss mainly with that we can get to the point of understanding what sadr may laws on a bad idea only if we stop ourselves, of course meaning the straight readers of the book stop ourselves from

thinking about the sex acts performed by lesbian and gay people. so that is a revealing foot noeth. a fourth argument which again appeals to what seems to be legitimate public purpose focuses on the difficulty that marriage seems to be facing in society. pointing to the rising divorce rates and evidence that children are damaged by lack of parental support people say we need to defend traditional marriage not to undermine by opening up to people who don't support its traditional wohlstetter. we could begin by contesting the blanket characterization of same-sex couples in large numbers of course they do have and raise children. marriage for same-sex couples as four other couples provides a quick remark of the entitlements and responsibilities as well as security, illegitimacy and social standing for children. an interactive in iowa have the lowest divorce rates in the nation and the massachusetts evidence which is calling on for

the longest time shows the rate hasn't risen as a result of the legalization. we might also cause before granting an increase in the divorce rate signals have social regeneration often with the past women stay married and even abusive because they have no marketable skills and no employment options. so i think often the simplest explanation for the rising divorce rate is the growing options for women. but let's concede for the sake of argument that there is a social problem. within about the claim that legalizing same-sex marriage underlines the africa couldn't penthouse once to defend traditional marriage as it cooks entitled to do and probably should do many policies in family and medical leave folks pin drop and alcohol counseling on demand support and policies for mental health counseling and

marital counselling strengthening laws against domestic violence and enforcing better employment counseling and financial support for those under stressed during the present economic crisis. and of course tighter enforcement of child support laws. such measures have a clear relationship should stress and strain facing traditional marriage today. the provision of same-sex marriage does not. if we were to study heterosexual primary reason for the divorce was the availability for same-sex couples. divorce is usually an intimate personal matter to the the nature of the marital relationship. the object or at this point typically makes a further move and it's here we start edging on to the jury never discussed. the recognition of same-sex marriage with traditional marriage says the objector the

means traditional marriage, mix it somehow less valuable. what is being said it seems is something like this if we include in the hall of fame baseball players who got the records by cheating by using steroids, that contaminates the whole thing, cheapening the achievements of other athletes. in general promiscuous recognition of low-level or mama serious contenders that honor idea that is the sort of argument people are trying to make when they say that the recognition of same-sex marriage defiles traditional marriage. well, how should we evaluate this in six couples are not like the great athletes or cheating athletes were at least no more so than heterosexual couples. they want to get married for reasons similar mary in

heterosexuals. north interpol, talk that way. i've never heard even one person say the state's willingness to marry britney spears or o.j. simpson negative amine sent durham heterosexual marriage had somehow local hokies they have the character intentions and the sepulcher negative the road and they think their own marriages

would don't fret about the way in which donner and or immoral heterosexuals so the institution of marriage or lower its value given the don't worry about this and they don't allow marriage even for him a and lesbians who scriven their character it is difficult to take the argument at face value the idea same-sex unions will so we traditional marriage therefore can't be in a store without moving on to the terrain of discussed here and contamination. the only distinction between between heterosexuals and whole class of gays and lesbians that can possibly explain the difference in people's reaction is the sex act of the former who do not discuss the majority however unworthy particularly people may be whereas the sex act on of the letcher who do. the fault must be to assess a traditional marriage with the sex act of same-sex couples is to