Comments on SSM and moral opposition to same-sex sexual conductTypePad2010-02-16T15:41:01ZRick Garnetthttps://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/tag:typepad.com,2003:https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2010/02/ssm-and-moral-opposition-to-samesex-sexual-conduct/comments/atom.xml/rob vischer commented on 'SSM and moral opposition to same-sex sexual conduct'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2012877ac810e970c2010-02-17T03:52:19Z2010-02-17T03:52:19Zrob vischerGood point, though I think the consequentialism is found throughout our public policy debates even when not driven by constitutional...<p>Good point, though I think the consequentialism is found throughout our public policy debates even when not driven by constitutional concerns. In my own experience, even when talking to folks who do not think that SSM is constitutionally mandated, it is hard to get traction for arguments about the nature of marriage unless that nature is tied to some discernible harm.</p>Don Altobello commented on 'SSM and moral opposition to same-sex sexual conduct'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2012877abf55f970c2010-02-17T02:02:47Z2010-02-17T02:02:47ZDon Altobello"In public policy debates, for better or for worse (and I know Robby would say for worse), it seems that...<p>"In public policy debates, for better or for worse (and I know Robby would say for worse), it seems that everyone is a consequentialist now. Are some of the consequentialist arguments shaped by moral opposition to same-sex sexual conduct? No doubt. But they still need to be engaged on the merits."</p>
<p>Rob--it seems, though, that the turn our constitutional jurisprudence has taken forces everyone to be a consequentialist. Due process, equal protection, important purpose, compelling purpose...isn't this all the language of consequentialism?</p>