I’m working on the rather old and well known logic here that one persons freedom ends where another persons freedom begins. That’s one of the core wisdoms of enlightenment, which came up with the idea of unalienable rights in the first place. If you want to have the long version: Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen, 26. August 1789, Article 4: „La liberté consiste à pouvoir faire tout ce qui ne nuit pas à autrui : ainsi l’exercice des droits naturels de chaque homme n’a de bornes que celles qui assurent aux autres Membres de la Société, la jouissance de ces mêmes droits. Ces bornes ne peuvent être déterminées que par la Loi.” ("Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen) If you have issues with the term "happiness", take it up with your nations founding fathers who declared the pursuit thereof an unalienable right. Your logic fails in that you have not explained to us yet how you are injured by other people’s right to marry, let alone how the right to own slave girls does not injure the rights of the slave girls. And I put it to you that while you’d be intelligent enough to realize that, you are too emotional about the topic of same sex marriage to want to realize that. Even worse: the emotions you show here aren’t nice compassionate one’s: Look at how your very emotional dislike of same sex marriage got you tempted to talk down marriage as such, leaving the impression that yours is a living hell devoid of love and happiness, which I sincerely hope it’s not. When I read it I found it so dry that I was rather glad to have acquired the skill of speed-reading. So we have here the overall opinion of the Supreme Court followed by texts in which dissenting judges of the Supreme Court give their opinion on the matter. I take it that you only spot “fallacious emotional arguments” in the overall opinion. And as above I put it to you that you only identify these arguments as emotional because - based on your very own emotional dislike of Same sex marriage, the rejection of which you have as of yet not given a single rational argument for – you happen to disagree with them.
You mean that "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" isn't in the Declaration of Independence anymore? Wow, the sorry state of education now days.
When it involves social engeneering and my tax dollars...it's no longer simply an individual's expression of their personal freedom. Pursuit of happiness is not happiness itself. You are missing the point--I think purposefully since essentially, you agree that not all means of pursuit of happiness should be supported by a government. You're just being your regular contrary self (which here, shows hypocrisy). Social engeneering through manipulation of law and my money. Your projection here is obvious. LOL....I never said any such thing. Nor have I even commented at all on my own marital bliss. The fact that I AM discussing it without emotional language leads you to say such things. My objectivity here leads you to claim I'm emotional? Lame, Junobet...lame. money...social engineering. What aren't you getting? Also--again you do that thing where you "presume intent" on points I make rather than the actual points I make--that is also fallacious argument (known as straw man). Your objectivity here is so lacking that it's impossible to discuss the REAL issue with you (this happens a lot with you). You deflect to your own assumptions about the author of a post and then argue with the imagined motivation of the poster rather than the body of what was actually said. Things like "I assume" and "I take it that.." demonstrate the faulty focus of your posts. In addition...you are judging me personally based on your faulty assumption (my emotions "aren't nice...compassionate"). There is no emotion, Juno--it's objectivity you disdain. As for the ruling....Would you like me to quote some fallacious emotional argumentation in the decision since your speed-reading skillz seem to have failed your comprehension?
No I stated that unalienable rights is not a phrase from the Constitution. You didn't ask about legal you ask if marriage was one. I say that it falls under that category, that choosing who to marry is one like choosing a religion. Unless that (which is protected by the Constitution isn't) and then we have a problem with language and it doesn't matter. But let's say that marriage is not an unalienable then neither truly is the pursuit of happiness. One's happiness can be altered by law. If one's pursuit of happiness violates societal law, then how can the pursuit be unalienable? Your insults not withstanding...can you make an argument that same sex marriage should be blocked by the government?
To cut things short: So the marriage of Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer and granting the then widowed Edith Windsor federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses involves social engineering and a your tax dollars, while the marriage between Edith Windsor and Theo Spyer and granting the then widowed Edith Windsor federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses would not involve social engineering and your tax dollars? How so? Now I would deem it reasonable if you said a state should not grant and accept marriage certificates and estate tax exemptions for surviving spouses for couples of any given gender combination, or that federal law should not accept any state law legislation on marriage at all, but that’s not what you are arguing, is it? If it is what you are arguing, I’ll apologize. Granting opposite-sex couples rights that you would not grant same-sex couples, however, is not reasonable if you take the principle of equal rights seriously, that does not allow for people to be discriminated against for reasons of gender and sexual orientation. I on the other hand fear the projection here is entirely on your side. So where does that leave us now? Formulations like “I take it that” give you the opportunity to correct my impression if you deem it wrong. So far you’ve failed to do that. It was you who claimed that the text contains fallacious emotional argumentation, so – seeing that you (maybe rightly so) mistrust my ability for speed reading – you should be able to point out to me where you spot it. Yes please.
This is the question posed in the poll: The poll does NOT ask if a marriage license, civil recognition, social recognition, or the recognition of a marriage by religious entities is an unalienable right. I have answered the poll question as written, since I don't profess to be a mindreader. I consider marriage to be an unalienable right. i don't consider a marriage license, civil recognition, social recognition, or recognition of a marriage by religious entities to be an unalienable right. The government does not 'own' marriage, regardless of all the laws that have exploited it. Nor does any religion 'own' marriage. An adult can enter into a consensual agreement to cohabitate, merge finances, etc. with another adult of their mutual choosing. A person does not lose the right to form such a relationship if they fail to exercise it. It's not a right that can be transferred, either. Were it not an unalienable right, government would have complete control of our relationships and living arrangements. Think carefully about the ramifications of this. I realize it can be hard to think about marriage outside its connections to government and religion, but at a fundamental level it is and should be up to individuals whether or not to enter into such a relationship, regardless of whether it receives the blessing of any religious entity, or the benefits of a licensed and civilly recognized marriage. Which is why I am adamant about considering myself married, even though that marriage enjoys neither religious nor governmental recognition. I don't need either one to tell me what my rights are or whether I'm married. They've no right to tell me that I'm not married outside their jurisdiction, which does not extend to every aspect of my life.
I think I pretty much buy all that, but I don't think it touches on the real issue of the day, which is 'are same gender couples entitled to legal marriage as a matter of equal protection of the laws?' As for 'telling you what your rights are,' there's rights in law, and rights according to other theories. While you're probably in a good position in the U.S. to ignore the priests if you wish, the state will tell you what your rights in law are, and it may be an important matter.
True, it's a separate question from the one posed in the poll. This depends on whether we consider the equal protection clause to be merely procedural, or encompassing something more substantive. I do not subscribe to the idea that it should be interpreted as narrowly procedural. Nor do I think it should be interpreted so broadly that it requires equality of results. A law that seeks to punish or marginalize some group without a rational basis for doing so shouldn't stand merely because it is cleverly worded to give the appearance of procedural equality. Rights are not rights if they are something the state has unlimited power to dictate. On the contrary, the codification of civil rights is intended to be a restriction on the power of government, not a restriction on the liberty of individuals by deciding for them what their rights are, or aren't. A state's power to tell me what my 'rights' are only extend to the things under the jurisdiction of the state. If the state controls it, it's not a right. Which is why I've said that a marriage license is not, by itself, a right.
Very good; agree completely. We've got a semantic argument now--you're arguing for a a doctrinaire restriction on the use of the word 'rights.' So let's go with that. What gives 'unalienable rights' their universality and virtual god-like authority, if you agree that describes them? What makes them more than 'logical, beneficial, desirable' ideas?
An excellent question. I'm not sure that I have a satisfying answer, though. Perhaps we should consider what the Declaration of Independence has to say about them: So, according to the authors, the existence of unalienable rights requires no proof. They didn't really define for us what makes unalienable rights universal. They seem to posit that universality itself as self-evident. Interestingly, we have this soon after: So they're telling us government has a role in making sure that people have access to their rights, and that the means to ensuring this is that government's power is derived from "the consent of the governed". No consent = no power. Government is an instrument for securing rights; not a body that determines what is or isn't a right. Like I said, I don't think I have a satisfying answer.
You call me a bigot and complain about name calling? You need to put some man pants on. Why would I make an argument that same sex should be blocked by government? My point is that the marriage contract is a State function and the State can change it at any time.
Sure, you can do that outside of government but the State dictates the State marriage contract and is partner to it. If you so wish to receive benefits, both State and Federal, you must enter into the State contract. An unalienable right is the right of association. Another is the right to enter into contract. The contract itself is not a unalienable right.
Then rights are self-evident because the cultural tradition, believed by the people with overwhelming and fervent consensus, says they are. And the 'consent of the governed' will be withdrawn if the men acting as government violate them. Or so we must hope. As we must hope that the government really is an agent for the people, and not a separate camp in business for itself....
You have the unalienable right to associate. You have the unalienable right to enter into contract. Marriage is a construct of man and thus not unalienable. Your unalienable rights precede any contract. You do not have a right to marriage anymore than you have a right to be rich. You may have a civil right to a marriage as dictated by social mores or law.
Well there's your whole problem right there. No wonder you're unable to converse intelligently on the subject. You might jas well say the laws of physics are manmade, and thus revocable by man. More accurately, you have no more right to marriage than you have to become rich through entering into contracts with others, which right you obviously have; so even on its own terms, your reasoning is retarded.
And marriage is a form of association. And marriage is an agreement, a form of contract, that individuals enter into. Unalienable rights are a construct of man. As is the concept of contract. Well, then I guess nothing is unalienable. Yet above you said people have an unalienable right to enter into a contract. Which is it? (and I have little doubt that quite a few capitalists would disagree with you about the "right to be rich") Perhaps if one subscribes to philosophies of authoritarian socialism or fascism. In a free society, my right to marry isn't dependent on social approval or the law. I just won't get any of the benefits of societal and legal recognition if my marriage isn't regarded as socially acceptable or as a lawful marriage. Doesn't mean I don't have a right to enter into that association, mutually consent with my spouse to the terms of that contractual arrangment, and call it a marriage outside the context of law that fails to recognize it as such.
Totally incorrect. Unalienable rights are those rights that preexist government. They are the rights you have in nature without interference from anyone else; thus, you cannot interfere in others natural rights. It is an exercise in logic and philosophy that had been worked out ages ago. "Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523 "Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"
The fellow said "Marriage is a construct of man" and you respond. The laws of physics are not a construct of man but how is marriage not a construct of man ?
Well, not really. That would be the case if you were a proponent of “legal positivism”. But if you are a proponent of universal unalienable rights you enter the realm of “natural law”. The problem with the former is that it is rather relativistic. (Once cultural tradition and vast common consent had it that slavery and racial segregation and not giving women the right to vote was ok) The problem with the latter – at least from a secular point of view - is that it more or less works on the assumption of something like God (something/somebody who endowed us with unalienable rights – rights that we have by nature/by the mere fact that we are human, whether a government/cultural tradition grants them or not). As far as I know philosophers of law are still scratching their head over this. I don't so much, because I believe in God. However, how to establish which rights He gave us naturally and which rights due to my own limited cultural horizon I just think He gave us naturally then gets me back to head-scratching.
