But what is really interesting is not that the reasoning is problematic; we noted before the flexible, even contradictory, use of precedent in the rulings that provide the background to Obergefell v. Hodges. Rather, it is the fact that such reasoning is not considered problematic at all. That it proved plausible—more than that, that the court majority believed it to be a sound argument and actually quite compelling—speaks eloquently of the ethical logic of the society within which it was formulated. It is emotivism. Those parts of tradition that support contemporary tastes are proof positive
...more
