Underground Thomist—What Obergefell Isn’t

[JimG]

Whether you think the Supreme Court’s decision in the so-called gay marriage case Obergefell v. Hodges was right or wrong, it could not be what it is said to be.

https://www.undergroundthomist.org/what-obergefell-isn’t

 

[Neithan]

It’s an exercise in freedom of contract, which separates the legal definition from the natural one. It’s like if someone gets a legal sex change, they can legally become the other sex, but that doesn’t change their natural sex.

So we are in a weird world of jurisprudence that creates legal realities that do not align with natural reality. But on the other hand, we were already in that world when we allowed corporations to be persons, and denied that for the unborn.

 

[GordonP]

when we allowed corporations to be persons

That was an entirely Catholic invention, by the way. Specifically invented by Pope Innocent VI to deal with the problem of ownership of monasteries without violating the vow of poverty of the monks and abbots.

 

[Neithan]

I double checked that on Wikipedia, the sole norm of all knowledge. So it started with the old Roman collegia, and slaves were not legal persons. Let’s hope at least that precedent won’t revive.

 

[JimG]

Today unborn children are not considered legal persons or even actual persons.

The concept of “legal person” is just a method of dealing with legal entities, such as corporations. It doesn’t have anything to do with actual human personhood. I suppose that one could reject the idea of corporation as legal person but it would lead to some legal problems. If I wanted to sue a large corporation, should I have to file suit against every individual stockholder?

 

[Neithan]

If I wanted to sue a large corporation, should I have to file suit against every individual stockholder?

It is a legal convenience. I agree it’s an entirely weirder kind of legal fiction when we’re actually legally changing the nature of the persons involved.