f Debating Rights and Same-Gender Relationships

References

1.  See also Harrison and Parkinson, supra note 2, 425.
2.  Calo, supra note 4, 502.
3.  See Doctrine Commission, supra note 26.
4.  See, e.g., ibid27. This broad characterization has different versions. See, e.g., Timothy Macklem, Independence of Mind (2006), vii (discussing “securing our general freedom to be ourselves, that is, our freedom to act in accordance with our personal convictions”), and Michael Ignatieff, Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry (2001) 83 (“human rights” “is the language through which individuals have created a defense of their autonomy against the oppression of religion”), quoted in Calo, supra note 4, 495, 500.
5.  See Habermas, “The Political”, supranote 53, 25–28 (arguing society stripped bare of religious legitimation is bound by the morality of human rights). See also John Milbank, Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason (2nd ed., 2006) 10 (“tst”) (describing, on his genealogical account, the invention of a secular space of justice as rights).
   [Google Scholar]
6.  Tikanga Pakeha Commission, supra note 39, 13.
7.  Tikanga Pakeha Commission, supra note 39, 14.
8.  Tikanga Pakeha Commission, supra note 39, 17.
9.  Tikanga Pakeha Commission, supra note 39, 9–11.
10.  Bedggood, “But Some”, supranote 71, 193.
    [Google Scholar]
11.  Rowan Williams, “Communion, Covenant and our Anglican Future”2009. Dr Rowan Williams, 104th Archbishop of Canterbury. Retrieved 16 September 2015, http://­rowanwilliams.archbishopofcanterbury.org/articles.php/1505/communion-covenant-and-our-anglican-future.
    [Google Scholar]
12.  Glendon, supra note 106, 21.
13.  O’Donovan, “The Language of Rights”, supranote 115, 194.
    [Google Scholar]
14.  Milbank, “Against”supranote 114, 226–227 and Porter, supra note 113, 82.
    [Google Scholar]
15.  Aquinas, supra note 121, ii–ii 66.2.
16.  Milbank “Against”, supra note 114, 219 and O’Donovan, “The Language of Rights”, supra note 115, 200–201.
17.  Milbank, “Against”, supra note 114, 215.
18.  Doctrine Commission, supra note 26, 22, 28.
19.  See also Meadowcraft, supra note 38 (arguing that “sexual differentiation and reproduction and selection are fundamental to the way the world works,” although exceptions may also be God-given).
20.  See Milbank, “Gay Marriage”, supranote 129. Bishop Victoria Matthews (Christchurch), not a traditionalist, notes “each broken marriage is a sign of brokenness beyond that particular marriage.” See Victoria Matthews, “Biblical Models of Marriage” 4 February 2013. Anglican Taonga. Retrieved 16 September 2015, http://anglicantaonga.org.nz/News/Common-Life/Biblical-models-of-marriage.
    [Google Scholar]
21.  Doctrine Commission, supra note 26, 22.
22.  Milbank, “Gay Marriage”, supranote 129.
    [Google Scholar]
23.  Doctrine Commission, supra note 26, 30.
24.  McCrudden, “Legal and Roman Catholic Conceptions”, supranote 4, 188.
    [Google Scholar]
25.  See Harrison and Parkinson, supra note 2, 420–427.
26.  See, e.g., McCrudden, “Legal and Roman Catholic Conceptions”, supranote 4, 193, 195 and John Milbank, “Dignity Rather than Rights”, in Christopher McCrudden (ed.), Understanding Human Dignity (2013), 189, 201–205.
    [Google Scholar]
27.  Moreau, supra note 148, 78–79.
28.  See Girgis, Anderson, and George, supra note 132, 53–58.
29.  Milbank, “Gay Marriage”, supranote 129.
    [Google Scholar]
30.  Doctrine Commission, supra note 26, 8–9, 17. These could be compatible. In Christian terms, human creativity (culture-making) is participating in God’s creative life. However, the Report in these lines arguably is appealing to a social constructionist argument.
31.  Matthews, supra note 131.
32.  Doctrine Commission, supra note 26, 15.
33.  Matthews, supra note 131.
34.  Good, Jenkins, Kittredge, Rogers, supra note 106, 58–62. See also Eugene F. Rogers Jr., Sexuality and the Christian Body (1999), 82.
35.  Doctrine Commission, supra note 26, 16.
36.  Doctrine Commission, supra note 26, 12.
37.  Rogers, supra note 174, 71.
38.  Doctrine Commission, supra note 26, 9–13.
39.  Matthews, supra note 131 (alluding to Matthew 7:16). See also Rowan Williams, “The Body’s Grace” 1989. abc Religion and Ethics, 24 August 2011. Retrieved 16 September 2015, http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2011/08/24/3301238.htm (arguing the biblical image of marriage is remarkably non-biological in emphasis, and the metaphor of God as a husband or lover is typically focused on faithfulness).
40.  Doctrine Commission, supra note 26, 5. See also Ma Whea?, supra note 19, 24.
41.  Doctrine Commission, supra note 26, 14.
42.  See Aquinas, supra note 120, i-ii 92.1 (arguing “the proper effect of law is to lead its subjects to their proper virtue”).
43.  See, e.g., supra note 160 and accompanying text.
44.  See Harrison and Parkinson, supra note 2 and Laycock, supra note 2.