This paper examines three arguments that claim marriage, as a political institution, is incompatible with political liberalism. These arguments are drawn from Elizabeth Brake 1 and Clare Chambers. 2 My purpose here is to determine which, if any, of the arguments show marriage to be incompatible with political liberalism.The “Neutrality Argument” claims that the political institution of marriage violates the political liberal principle of neutrality. I claim that no such violation occurs. The “Unjustified Discrimination Argument” alleges that marriage involves the state in unjustified discrimination. I suggest there are grounds for the differential treatment identified. The “Public Reason Argument” argues that marriage, as it is currently structured, violates the political liberal principle of public reason. I claim that its current structure can be justified by appeal to public reasons. I therefore conclude that none of these arguments successfully demonstrate that marriage is incompatible with political liberalism.

中文翻译：

---

婚姻与政治自由主义不相容吗？

本文考察了声称婚姻作为一种政治制度与政治自由主义不相容的三个论点。这些论点来自 Elizabeth Brake 1 和 Clare Chambers。2 我在这里的目的是确定哪些论点（如果有的话）表明婚姻与政治自由主义不相容。“中立论点”声称婚姻的政治制度违反了政治自由主义的中立原则。我声称没有发生此类违规行为。“不正当歧视论据”指称婚姻涉及国家不正当歧视。我建议有理由确定差别待遇。“公共理性论证”认为，目前的婚姻结构违反了公共理性的政治自由原则。我声称它目前的结构可以通过诉诸公众理由来证明是合理的。因此，我得出结论，这些论点都没有成功证明婚姻与政治自由主义不相容。