I like the idea of pulling out one of the Supreme Court
logical/rhetoric pivot points in each post – to keep away from the very heartfelt and passionate emotions people have about the issue as a whole.
Today’s is a brilliant point made by Justice Sotomayor. As with yesterday’s post, it is insightful and a good learning experience
regardless of which side of the issue you are on.
One of the attorneys said that the Court should preserve the
power to define marriage with the states’ voters. They should have this "liberty." The voters should be “free” to
define marriage in the way they see fit, without “constraint” from the
Court.
She replied that what the same sex marriage bans do is “constrain”
liberty. If anyone is allowed to marry
if they want, to whom they want, and when they want, that is
liberty. A heterosexual person can decide to get married or not. And if so, to whom. So can a LGBT person. A law that constrains any of
these choices for any person, is giving some voters the ability to constrain
the liberty of other voters. It doesn’t
give anyone more liberty; it gives the voters the power to constrain liberty. So
if the Court denies the ability of states to constrain liberty,that would be
increasing the liberty of the individuals. The bans would be a "liberty to constrain liberty."
Whatever side of the issue you are on, that is a logical
smackdown. Perhaps the definition of
marriage is one thing or the other. That discussion is a different post. But
just in terms of maximizing liberty, allowing something is more liberty than
prohibiting it.
