Defining Marriage: Classification, Interpretation, and Definitional Disputes

Abstract

Abstract:The classification of a state of affairs under a legal category can be considered as a kind of condensed decision that can be made explicit, analyzed, and assessed using argumentation schemes. In this paper, the controversial conflict of opinions concerning the nature of "marriage" in Obergefell v. Hodges is analyzed pointing out the dialectical strategies used for addressing the interpretive doubts. The dispute about the same-sex couples' right to marry hides a much deeper disagreement not only about what marriage is, but more importantly about the dialectical rules for defining it.Résumé: La classification d'une situation réelle dans une catégorie juridique peut être considérée comme une sorte de décision condensée qui peut être explicite, analysée et évaluée à l'aide des schèmes d'argumentation. Dans cet article, le conflit d'opinions controversées concernant la nature du «mariage» dans le procès Obergefell v. Hodges est analysé en soulignant les straté-gies dialectiques utilisées pour faire face aux doutes reliés à l'interprétation. Le débat sur le droit des couples du même sexe de se marier cache un désaccord plus profond non seulement sur ce qu'est le mariage, mais surtout sur les règles dialectiques pour le définir.

Values and Valuations in Judicial Discourse. A Corpus-Assisted Study of (Dis)Respect in US Supreme Court Decisions on Same-Sex Marriage

“…The theme of (dis)repect tends to be echoed in dissenting opinions in subsequent underminers and rebuttals. While the debate to a large extent centres upon the definitions of marriage and liberty (Macagno 2016), it is surprising to see how much the notion of respect has been integrated into the judicial argumentation. Further research should focus on other classes of keywords and key semantic domains with a view to building a more complete axiomatic picture of these landmark civil rights cases.…”

A comparative investigation of metadiscursive clarifying devices in the abortion discourse of the U.S. Supreme Court

“…the communicative verb say ) was classified as dialogically targeted. The writer is responding to the discourse of the dissenters (Justice Thomas and Justice Kennedy) and clarifying what is not being said by the majority, that is, providing a rebuttal (Macagno, 2016: 320).…”

Marriage, Liberty and Constitution: a Corpusassisted Study of Value-Laden Words in Legal Argumentation

“…The other fundamental and related issue made about marriage concerns its definition. Macagno (2016) argues that a deep disagreement about the nature of marriage, its definition and redefinition is at the heart of the dispute about the same-sex couples' right to marry in Obergefell vs Hodges. In fact, the same could be said about the earlier case of US vs Windsor.…”

“…The power of emotive words has been recognized and acknowledged in various discourse contexts, including legal texts (Macagno and Walton 2014). Macagno (2016) in his study of definitional aspects in Obergefell vs. Hodges demonstrates how the majority judge resorts to various rhetorical and argumentative moves to present the redefinition of the concepts of marriage and liberty. This study adopts a linguistic perspective to examine how judges, while pursuing their rhetorical and argumentative goals, often employ highly evaluative and emotive language.…”