No Purpose is Rational
Judge Richard Kramer of San Francisco County's Superior Court said, "It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners." Can a truly pluralistic society tolerate a judgment based on an appeal to "rationality"?
Does judge Kramer mean the law of non-contradiction is undermined by the ban? Does he mean there is no Platonic Ideal of marriage? No practical consequence for excluding gays from the institution? That the ban doesn't approach the middle of two extremes? That it isn't instrumental in the affirmation of life? That there is no empirical evidence to support it? That it is only a partial truth in need of a compensating antithesis? That it lacks conceptual necessity? Or, that there is no divine revelation in favor of it?
Just what does Judge Kramer mean by "rationality"?! and if he has an answer, why should that standard of rationality determine the laws in a land that by no means assents to one standard of rationality? Isn't this just a playground taunt? "My adversaries are not rational; therefore, I may dismiss them altogether."
Please. Can we move on?
Update: With many thanks to jpe, I found the Judge Kramer's opinion here. More later...
posted by Quincy Magoo at
5:56 AM
3 Comments:
He's using 'rationality' as instrumental reasoning. So, if I want to get a glass of water, the rational person would walk to the sink and fill a glass. The irrational person, however, picks up a book nearby and starts squeezing.
So it is that same-sex marriage bans are thrown out. One of the stated goals is frequently "to protect children." One is hard-pressed to see what on earth SSM has to do with protecting children; it's a truly weird argument. Banning SSM to protect children (many of whom are the children of gays) is the legislative equivalent of squeezing a book for water.
By
tm, at 5:42 AM
Did you read the opinion? If not, shouldn't you have?
By
tm, at 5:44 AM
Did you read the opinion? If not, shouldn't you have?
No and yes. The opinion was not readily availabe in mid-March, at least not to my searching efforts. But thanks to your provocation, I did find it. I'll be right back.
By
Quincy Magoo, at 6:24 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home