The author posits that ‘rights-not-to’ must be construed along a private-public spectrum in the context of its social impact. The article illustrates this by comparing Prof. Nan Hunter’s more behavioural conception of the ‘right not to marry’ versus Justice Hansaria’s more socially significant recognition of the ‘right not to live’. As such, the article also critiques the remarks on singlehood in Obergefell, in terms of its understanding of the right not to marry.
The post The Need to Legally Recognise the Right To, and the Right Not To: An Appraisal of the American Verdict Obergefell v. Hodges appeared first on Law and Other Things.