Professor Sandel uses the Casey Martin case as an illustration of how all debates about rights are in fact substantive debates about what rights are worthy of honor and public recognition, and extends the idea into the question of gay marriage.

He raises Michael Kinsley's suggestion of "disestablishing marriage" or "privatizing marriage" (with which I agree).

Prof. Sandel suggests that the reason people on both sides don't embrace this suggestion is that what's at stake here are two rival conceptions of the essence of the practice, the moral values of the practice, and the social virtues that the practice rewards.

While Sandel is probably right, in what keeps people from embracing this, it seems to me that this reflects a fundamental misdirection in our polity - of having allowed government to bestow its blessings and condemnation on so many things, that we award such a blessing untoward, unjustified value.

If we privatized more of the social practices and elements of public recognition, those elements themselves would become "privatized."

I missed Professor Fried's responsive comments in this panel, which I think may have touched on this point.