Here are George Will’s thoughtful observations on the gay marriage controversy. Will’s discussion brings to mind some of the normal liberal fallacies that infect so many public policy debates. First, there’s the familiar notion that because an institution is working imperfectly, it is fair-game to be taken over and/or re-defined by a bureaucracy or, preferably, the judiciary. In the case of marriage, the fact that divorce rates are far too high is considered by some an argument that marriage should be redefined by judges, or at least that it can be without any real cost to the institution. This strikes me as similar to arguing that because the Everton soccer team is doing poorly this year, it should bring in rugby players, or perhaps simply switch to playing rugby.
Second, Will notes that neither side of the debate can prove what (as an empirical matter) the consequences of altering the public meaning of marriage by including same-sex unions would be. Some (not Will, as far as I can tell) argue that unless legislators can prove that rules reflecting the moral judgments of society are justified by empirical data, these rules should be overturned. But, except for certain philosophical pragmatists, morality-based rules are justified (or not) by non-empirical concerns. Thus, the absence of empirical data, if relevant at all, should hardly be dispositive. Even as a bit of a pragmatist myself, I recognize that refusing to recognize moral judgments as a substantial state interest that can justify public policy when challenged in court will tend to read moral concerns out of law and public policy (with bad pragmatic consequences).
Finally, of course, there are many public policy debates in which neither side can present compelling empirical evidence to support its position. Indeed, the more revolutionary the proposed policy change, the more difficult it will be to present meaningful empirical data. Why shouldn’t the burden of proof be on the side that wishes to redefine vital social arrangements and overturn society’s moral judgments?
Most Read on Power Line
- Why You Should Be Sympathetic Toward Cliven Bundy
- Today's IRS Documents: What Do They Show?
- Standoff at Bundy Ranch Ends, With Photo of the Year So Far
- The War On Standards Comes to College Debate [with comment by Paul]
- Is Scott Walker on his way to 2016 front-runner status?
- At Dartmouth, Phil Hanlon wants no enemies to the left
Subscribe to Power Line by Email
Find us on Facebook
“Arise and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.” Winston Churchill
“Proclaim Liberty throughout All the land unto All the Inhabitants Thereof.” Inscription on the Liberty Bell