SSM is not the problem...
it is the philosophical nonsense being spouted in its defense that gets me.
I would say we should accept SSM on the same basis that Michael Oakeshott gave for giving women the vote: in our current society, we accept gay couples as being on equal footing with heterosexual couples in essentially every other respect, so it is incoherent to treat them differently in this one respect.
But instead, we get nonsense like: "The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity." (From the Supreme Court decision.)
OK, then: henceforth, I "define my identity" as "He whose opinion should be sought by all on all matters of American policy, and, whose opinion, once given, should be regarded as dispositive."
So pay attention, motha-fers.
I would say we should accept SSM on the same basis that Michael Oakeshott gave for giving women the vote: in our current society, we accept gay couples as being on equal footing with heterosexual couples in essentially every other respect, so it is incoherent to treat them differently in this one respect.
But instead, we get nonsense like: "The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity." (From the Supreme Court decision.)
OK, then: henceforth, I "define my identity" as "He whose opinion should be sought by all on all matters of American policy, and, whose opinion, once given, should be regarded as dispositive."
So pay attention, motha-fers.
If the SCOTUS decision talked about the Equal Protection Clause, then it sounds like you'd be in agreement with you.
ReplyDelete