However, I hope he does not make tomorrow (as he suggests he might) what I believe to be the flawed argument that, because elderly or sterile opposite-sex couples are allowed to marry (or more broadly, because procreation is not made an absolute prerequisite to opposite-sex marriage), the purpose of marriage cannot reasonably be viewed as fostering procreation.
As Dale knows, all laws are to some extent over- or under-inclusive. A law designed to encourage (or discourage) behavior A may in practice reward (or punish) people who do not engage in A (or reward/punish those who engage in A only occasionally just as much as those who engage in A regularly). Similarly, the law may reward/punish some people who NEVER engage in A, or it may result in some combination of the above (i.e., rewarding/punishing less than all of those who engage in A while simultaneously rewarding/punishing some who do not).
This kind of imperfection is simply an unavoidable feature of law, and of all human endeavors, and it seems to me entirely unconvincing to point to the mere existence of some over- or under-inclusiveness respecting behavior A as “proof” that the statute cannot have had the purpose (or cannot have the effect) of encouraging/discouraging A.
Most of us would agree that the purpose (and, we hope, effect) of speed limits is to promote automotive safety. Nonetheless, few would deny that there are some drivers who regularly exceed the speed limit without incident. Similarly, most would admit that some drivers who do not exceed the speed limit (like those who drive 35 mph on the freeway or who simply drive badly although observing the speed limit) pose a safety risk. Yet, most of us would consider it silly to point to the safe drivers who regularly exceed the speed limit or the unsafe ones who drive below it as “proof” that speed limit laws have nothing to do with highway safety.
As Dale knows, all laws are to some extent over- or under-inclusive. A law designed to encourage (or discourage) behavior A may in practice reward (or punish) people who do not engage in A (or reward/punish those who engage in A only occasionally just as much as those who engage in A regularly). Similarly, the law may reward/punish some people who NEVER engage in A, or it may result in some combination of the above (i.e., rewarding/punishing less than all of those who engage in A while simultaneously rewarding/punishing some who do not).
This kind of imperfection is simply an unavoidable feature of law, and of all human endeavors, and it seems to me entirely unconvincing to point to the mere existence of some over- or under-inclusiveness respecting behavior A as “proof” that the statute cannot have had the purpose (or cannot have the effect) of encouraging/discouraging A.
Most of us would agree that the purpose (and, we hope, effect) of speed limits is to promote automotive safety. Nonetheless, few would deny that there are some drivers who regularly exceed the speed limit without incident. Similarly, most would admit that some drivers who do not exceed the speed limit (like those who drive 35 mph on the freeway or who simply drive badly although observing the speed limit) pose a safety risk. Yet, most of us would consider it silly to point to the safe drivers who regularly exceed the speed limit or the unsafe ones who drive below it as “proof” that speed limit laws have nothing to do with highway safety.
No comments:
Post a Comment