« "Thinly-disguised Totalitarianism" | Main | I believe the correct phrase is "My sentiments exactly" »

March 24, 2004



Maybe it's because I'm a lawyer, but setting aside the underlying issue for the moment, I really don't like any "solutions" that involve deliberately breaking the law.


How would you have felt if a county commissioner in Virginia in the early 60s had refused to issue licenses to anyone, arguing that unless black and white couples could marry, no one could?


As much as I despise the moral equivalency argument, I'd actually feel the same way in this instance. The injustice in Virginia's anti-miscegenation law was in the fact that members of opposite races were not allowed to marry, not in the fact that members of the same race were. The solution is to eradicate the perceived evil, not to spread it around even more.

Frankly, I'm a bit surprised to hear you advocating a policy predicated entirely on revenge. If demanding an eye for an eye from the original perpetrator is bad, isn't demanding the eyes of 49 innocent bystanders even worse?


I don't think it's revenge, XRLQ. I think it is asking a reasonable question -- is it moral to conttinue to offer marriage to one group while another group cannot avail itself of those benefits? Illegal? Yes. Immoral? I'm not sure. And the harm of not being able to marry in one small county is infinitesmal compared to the larger harm of not being able to marry anywhere at all.

I like your distinction with the miscegenation case.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Regular reads

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 01/2004