I Have A Feeling
Reason Magazine has excerpted part of the Prop. 8 (gay marriage ban) decision from the judge who gave the decision:
At oral argument on proponents' motion for summary judgment, the court posed to proponents' counsel the assumption that "the state's interest in marriage is procreative" and inquired how permitting same-sex marriage impairs or adversely affects that interest. Counsel replied that the inquiry was "not the legally relevant question," but when pressed for an answer, counsel replied: "Your honor, my answer is: I don’t know. I don't know."…Evidence is so passe when strong feelings are involved. The "Conservatives" arguing in favor of the ban are nothing more than Progressives in disguise. And lest you think I'm a proponent of gay marriage - no. But I'm not bothered by it either.
Despite this response, proponents in their trial brief promised to "demonstrate that redefining marriage to encompass same-sex relationships" would effect some twenty-three specific harmful consequences. At trial, however, proponents presented only one witness, David Blankenhorn, to address the government interest in marriage. Blankenhorn’s testimony…provided no credible evidence to support any of the claimed adverse effects proponents promised to demonstrate. During closing arguments, proponents again focused on the contention that "responsible procreation is really at the heart of society's interest in regulating marriage." When asked to identify the evidence at trial that supported this contention, proponents' counsel replied, "you don't have to have evidence of this point."
There was a day when Conservatives were directed by reason. They had much better arguments than "tradition" And if tradition is so important how do you explain their support for the Progressive supported (back in the day) untraditional Drug Prohibition?
So let me ask. Of the points those who favor the ban suggest "will be proved" [pdf] is there any thing that would actually pass as proof? Or is it as I suspect another version of the Progressive refrain: "I have a feeling". Followed by that other Progressive refrain: "something must be done".
My advice to conservatives? If you really don't like Progressives why not stop following in their footsteps? Why not elevate reason over feelings? That would be a really different brand of politics.
And I found this an especially amusing addendum to the whole controversy. Reagan-Appointed Judge Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban.
H/T Instapundit
Posts
2 comments:
The Judge is a homosexual. Had he been fair, he would have recused himself.
Read those quotes in context of the full actual questioning the judge made around those quotes. (Not just the context the judge provided to justify his decision). This was cherry picking the proponent's statements to find a weak one when in context it was tangential to the issue that the judge was questioning on.
Another term for this debating tactic is attacking the strawman. You question your opponent with regard to tangential issues, then hold up the response as evidence against the main point. In reality one has nothing to do with the other.
Again, in the closing arguments, there is more evidence that "responsible procreation is really at the heart of society's interest in regulating marriage" as there is that prop 8 "mandates that men and women be treated differently based on antiquated and discredited notions of gender."
That second one's another quote from the judge, by the way.
"antiquated and discredited notions of gender?"
I was acutally aware that the realization that men and women are quite different goes back a ways. (in fact people with common sense and in fact any 5 year old who hasn't yet been indoctrinated can tell you this).
But I was unaware that the IDEA of gender had been discredited. When did this happen exactly?
Who is it that is allowing an unreasonable personal preference to rule thei fairness and adherence to the law exactly?
Post a Comment