A Universal Right to Love?

Today in class Dr. J gave an example of right to necessity that involved issues of love and marriage. To summarize, she suggested that if in the 1940's she, a white woman, had fallen madly in love with a black man, that she had no right to marry him, but she possessed a necessity to do so. In response to this, I asked if Kant would consider this to be rational, because it was a matter of intense emotions;
Dr. Johnson reminded me that what is necessary for an act or law to be considered rational is that it adheres to the principles of the categorical imperative, specifically in this case the first tenet-- "One must act only in such a way that one could will the maxim of one's actions as a universal law."

Perhaps I sound like a broken record at this point, but here again I will turn to the subject of gay rights. Dr. Johnson's example need not have been one dated to more than seventy years ago when there are still limitations on a person's ability to marry whom they chose-- namely, that gay marriage is still not recognized as legal in most states. In this instance, if I as a woman fell madly in love with another woman to the point of necessity, the second instance of equivocal justice, then I would marry her. The issue here is that cases of equivocal justice are in fact not instances when justice is able to be applied-- they are in fact exceptions to Kant's previously defined application of justice. Furthermore, the acknowledgment that this is an example of right to necessity equivocal justice allows the concession that I, as a women in love with another women, do not have the right to marry her, even though I do so to preserve my emotional self. This is, in a sense, what gay couples have done for the past several decades-- my own parents among them. They have acknowledged that the government does not allow them the right to marry, but in order to honor their own nature they have built relationships that are equivalent to marriages in all but the legal sense to fulfill their necessity.

Still, all of this is to treat the issue of homosexual relationships, or more broadly in fact all types of romantic or committed relationship, as a matter of exception to justice. I believe that this is not that case, nor do I believe that Kant would consider it to be so. That each rational agent should be able to freely choose whom they want to build a relationship with is in accordance with the categorical imperative-- this law can be applied universally, without infringing on the free will of another person and without treating another person as merely a means to an end. By this understanding, all relationships between free and rational agents (meaning excluding bestiality from the realm of possibility) ought to be considered just and moral.

In American politics, this would be generally accepted on the subject of arranged marriages (that this defies this law) and interracial marriages (that these unions are acceptable), but not so much when it comes to polygamy or, to my point, gay marriage. So according to the conservative voices (primarily Christian in the United States), the right to choose whom one wishes to marry is not universally applicable.

To this point, then, I say that Kant would still have grounds to disagree. Even if you feel that the law of the right to marry at your own will cannot be applied universally (therefore, you believe that homosexual relationships are irrational), the fact still stands that the ultimate element for Kant is each person's own free will. For any individual to deny his or her own free will is to deny their rationality. Therefore, so that each person might be in accordance with his or her own free will, equal rights to chose whom one builds a lifelong commitment with is a necessity.