Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

An interesting unintended consequence of the argument that marriage confers dignity is that all who are not married are lacking in dignity in relation to those who are married and it is the laws fault!!!  

Dignity isn't a finite resource that is parceled out whereby if someone receives dignity there is less to go around elsewhere. Single people aren't less dignified in the eyes of the state simply because the state also confers dignity to the married couple's relationship. The problem is that since the state does confer a measure of dignity to the relationship those that are expressly prohibited from participating in the institution are denigrated.

Indeed dignity is not a finite well to be drawn upon.  But I think we can agree that dignity of a person is bestowed according to the specific conduct and reasons for that conduct of persons.  Thus if a person chooses to engage in conduct X which is socially considered dignified they are dignified, whereas person engaging in conduct Y which is not socially considered dignified is not dignified.  Now the person whose conduct in X is greater may be said to be more dignified due to the magnitude effect of greater quality or quantity.  As such the person who minimally engages in X or does not engage in X (while still not engaging in Y) may be said to be less dignified than one who engages in X extensively or minimally.

I think the problem is holding the state in conferring dignity.  The state is expressing an affirmation or refutation of given conduct in accordance with the interest and needs of the state.  As such the state may legislate or encourage undignified conduct which is in the states interest.  This is respondents argument.  That while society may assign dignity to the institution of marriage, the state has no intention in or is not trying to assign dignity in endeavoring to meet state interests.

Argument may than be made that the states affirmation is perceived by the general populace as imparting dignity.  To which two things may be said.  First, such an argument would stand in contradiction to the general observations that while the state permits infanticide (in the form of abortion) and homicide (in the form of execution) dignity does not follow the agent by which infanticide and homicide are carried out.  Thus, state sanction did not convey dignity.  Second, as stated in A Man For All Seasons:

"The world must construe according to its wits; this court must construe according to the law."