By Definition

What a piece of work is Mitt. It would serve him right if this leads gay couples to move to Massachusetts, establish residency, and cost him his re-election.

According to MSNBC that 1913 law was originally passed to limit interracial marriages. So he can certainly claim to be upholding both it’s letter and his spirit, but he probably doesn’t want to.

I also wonder how they handle the states that do not explicitly forbid gay marriage, especially New York, where the attorney general says the state’s laws require the recognition of gay unions performed in other states.

And more generally–there is a doctrine in U.S. equal protection law that giving effect to the prejudices of private actors is not a legitimate basis for a law. So–you could challenge the law to say, as applied to you, its only purpose is to give effect to another state’s discrimination against gay people, and that’s not a rational basis.

I mean, say there’s one state that still bans interracial marriage…Even assuming that Loving v. Virginia had never happened, would Massachusetts’ Supreme Court really be okay with a clerk refusing to give a marriage license to an interracial couple that lives there?

I suppose it could go to the SJC again. They must be psyched.

He seems to be using ‘by definition’ to mean ‘analytically’. This is actually an implication rather than an equivalence. If A is by definition B, then A is (by definition of ‘by definition’) analytically B. But A’s being analytically B (such as by being a logical rearrangement, as in the example) does not imply that A is B by virtue of a definition. I think.

I don’t think it’s fair to pick on a non-philosopher for misusing the phrase “by definition”. He basically meant “as a trivial consequence of the law” or something. Of course, the interpretation of just how legal the marriage has to be in the home state in order to be acceptable under the 1913 law is a bit complicated. Does the state have to have fully legal same-sex marriage, like MA? Or a specific ruling saying that out-of-state same-sex marriages are ok, like NY? Or just no law against same-sex marriage, like NJ and CT? Or is it even ok if there’s a law saying same-sex marriages may not be performed in the state, as long as it doesn’t say they’re invalid if performed elsewhere?

the pope isn’t exactly a bachelor but he is an unmarried man. oh, another post about same-sex marriage… nevermind.

Ultimately, “by definition” in this context means “what the Supreme Judicial Court decides,” which is true of any Mass. law, of course.

Moreover, while presumably he’s correct from a philosophical perspective, from a legal standpoint, Jon Mandle has the concept of “definition” exactly backward. The point of defining something in a statute is to bar other possible interpretations. In other words, a definition is necessary precisely because it is possible to imagine other states of affairs; the definition is necessary in order to make clear the particular meaning intended by the legislature (or the judge). If a term is wholly unambiguous and susceptible to only one possible interpretation, then there is no possibility of misinterpretation and no need for definition.

Here’s what I don’t get: most people against gay marriage seem to oppose it on religious/moral grounds (duh) and likewise definitions of marriage. There is supposedly a separation of church and state here in the US. Why not split the ceremonies, as is done in some other countries. Everybody gets a license of Civil Union or Legal Union, or whatever, from the state, and that license is what defines the relationship for equal protections, tax purposes, health benefits, etc. Then, if you want a religious marriage ceremony, your church can perform it. Let the church/denomination decide whether gays can marry. It seems to me that also protects religious freedom, since there are members of clergy in this country who are willing to perform gay marriages. Just an idea.