Homosexual marriage and the law of identity
The California state supreme court invalidated a law (approved by the voters) which limited marriage to a, ‘union between a man and a woman.’ I understand the purpose of the court is to ensure laws which are passed, even by the voters themselves, comply with the Constitution and legal precedent, but I also thought their decisions should comply with the laws of logic.
One of the basic laws of logic is the law of identity, A=A. this is meant to show that each thing has is own essence or its own identity. Therefore, if what we define as a union between a man and a woman
is marriage, then anything else we call marriage should share the same essence. Homosexual unions do not. If marriage is defined, as it has been for thousands of years, then to call a new type of union a new name is more than reasonable. Should we have started calling telephones “telegraphs” because a lot of people like that name and we wanted people to accept telephones? No, because they are not telegraphs. The main reason to call homosexual unions marriages is to make them feel better. It is philosophical, not practical.
I know courts are being accused of redefining laws, but redefining logic? Probably not a good policy for them to pursue.
Discussion Area - Leave a Comment