Against Marriage is a radical argument for the abolition of state-recognised marriage. Clare Chambers argues that state-recognised marriage violates both equality and liberty, even when expanded to include same-sex couples. Instead Chambers proposes the marriage-free state: an egalitarian state in which religious or secular marriages are permitted but have no legal status. Part I makes the case against marriage. Chambers investigates the critique of marriage that has developed within feminist and liberal theory. Feminists have long argued that marriage is a violation of equality since it is both sexist and heterosexist. Chambers endorses the feminist view and argues, in contrast to recent egalitarian pro-marriage movements, that same-sex marriage is not enough to make marriage equal. Chambers argues that state-recognised marriage is also problematic for liberalism, particularly political liberalism, since it imposes a controversial, hierarchical conception of the family that excludes many adults and children. Part II sets out the case for the marriage-free state. Chambers critically assesses recent theories that attempt to make marriage egalitarian, either by replacing it with relationship contracts or by replacing it with alternative statuses such as civil union. She then sets out a new model for the legal regulation of personal relationships. In the marriage-free state regulation is based on relationship practices not relationship status, and these practices are regulated separately rather than as a bundle. The marriage-free state thus employs piecemeal, practice-based regulation. Finally, Chambers considers how the marriage-free state should respond to unequal religious marriage. The result is an inspiring egalitarian approach that fits the diversity of real relationships.
Immigration is one of the most polarizing issues in contemporary politics. It raises questions about identity, economic well-being, the legitimacy of state power, and the boundaries of membership and justice. How should we think about immigration and what policies should democratic societies pursue? Some contend that borders should generally be open and people should be free to migrate in search of better lives. Others insist that governments have the right to unilaterally close their borders and should do so. In Immigration and Democracy, Sarah Song develops an intermediate ethical position that takes seriously both the claims of receiving countries and the claims of prospective migrants. She argues that political membership is morally significant, even if morally arbitrary. Political membership grounds particular rights and obligations, and a government may show some partiality toward the interests of its members. Yet, we also have universal obligations to those outside our orders. Where prospective migrants have urgent reasons to move, as in the case of refugees, their interests may trump the less weighty interests of members. What is required is not open or closed borders but open doors. An accessible ethical framework that clarifies and deepens the ideas with which members of democratic societies can debate immigration, Immigration and Democracy considers the implications of a realistically utopian theory for immigration law and policy.
Providing over 3000 entries, including the most recent terms and concepts, 'The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy' includes biographies of some of the most famous and influential philosophers, as well as exploring key terms and concepts.
CSA Sociological Abstracts abstracts and indexes the international literature in sociology and related disciplines in the social and behavioral sciences. The database provides abstracts of journal articles and citations to book reviews drawn from over 1,800+ serials publications, and also provides abstracts of books, book chapters, dissertations, and conference papers.
Includes, beginning Sept. 15, 1954 (and on the 15th of each month, Sept.-May) a special section: School library journal, ISSN 0000-0035, (called Junior libraries, 1954-May 1961). Also issued separately.