Classically, when philosophers teach deductions, we trot out examples like the following: “If Jim is a bachelor, then it follows from the definition (or meaning) of ‘bachelor’ that Jim is an unmarried man.” The conclusion is supposed to follow deductively from the premise about Jim and the definition of “bachelor.” But there’s more: although we could imagine the premise about Jim being false, it’s supposed to be impossible to imagine a bachelor that’s not an unmarried man - that’s supposed to be the additional force of saying “by definition.”
Governor Mitt Romney says that a 1913 law requires that same-sex marriages in Massachusetts be limited to residents only. Here’s his argument:
Our current laws, as they exist, limit same-sex marriage to people from jurisdictions where such marriage would be legal,” Mr. Romney said. “And our understanding is that same-sex marriage is only legal in Massachusetts. And therefore, by definition, only people who reside in Massachusetts or intend to reside in Massachusetts would be able to be married under this provision.”
My question: “by definition” of what? Certainly not “marriage” which he recognizes can – and does – change as the law changes.
Extra credit: will a man who is not a resident of Massachusetts, but who marries a man who is a resident still be a bachelor?
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.
The law itself, whatever reason it was enacted, says something to the effect of: a marriage which is entered into in Massachusetts specifically in order to circumvent the laws of another state is considered invalid.
While I think gay marriage should be legal in all states, the law is a perfectly good way to respect the “full faith and credit” clause of the U.S. Constitution while at the same time allowing Massachusetts to be more liberal in who it allows to marry.
In fact, I’d say that laws like those in MA are the only valid resolution to the current issue in the U.S., since nationwide, a majority of people are still against legalizing gay marriage.
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.
In my philosophy classes, we generally do use ‘by definition’ and ‘analytically’ to mean the same thing, and though I trust entangledbank that there may be some distinction, I wouldn’t call it cause for much criticism of Governor Romney. It seems to me that they have at least a close enough use in colloquial language to suffice for a political discussion.
Are there examples of analytical proofs that don’t rely soley on definitions as their premises?
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?
There is a reasonable consistent parsing of that statement possible:
“Our current laws, as they exist, limit […]” -> definition
“our understanding […]” -> assumption
“therefore, by definition […]” -> deduction
“By definition” would indeed mean that there is no other conclusion imaginable given the definition and the assumption.
This may be a bit silly, but i found the question a bit unimaginative …
the pope isn’t exactly a bachelor but he is an unmarried man. oh, another post about same-sex marriage… nevermind.
It would be nice to consider the actual statute involved (obviously homo-hater Romney has not):
>Chapter 207: Section 11 Non-residents; marriages contrary to laws of domiciled state
>Section 11. No marriage shall be contracted in this commonwealth by a party residing and intending to continue to reside in another jurisdiction if such marriage would be void if contracted in such other jurisdiction, and every marriage contracted in this commonwealth in violation hereof shall be null and void.
http://www.state.ma.us/legis/laws/mgl/207-11.htm
I’m sure that the residents of Massachusetts are encouraged by the apparent fact that the most pressing issue for their governor is the same-sex marriage issue. Given the amount of time and effort he has expended in trying to head it off, of course.
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.
Having examined this question earlier, I do think that Romney has the law on his side in this case— unlike his previous effort to keep the state from allowing same-sex marriages until the 2006 vote to ratify the state anti-marriage amendment, which had no legal support whatsoever.
I don’t like the result of the law, but I can see it supported as a reasonable way of respecting the federal full-faith-and-credit clause, as another commenter stated earlier.
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.
For the extra credit:
He would be a "confirmed bachelor."
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review