Those are not “rights”. Those are benefits provided by the state. Benefits provided by the state are not a “right”.
How did anti-miscegenation laws get overturned, then?
I agree, it’s not an argument. I simply stated that I agreed with that Ayn Rand quote, and I found it ironic you did not, given your username. Respond or not, I don’t give a fuck.
I thought we were talking about Ayn Rand’s position on the matter. If you want to argue Supreme Court’s position, that’s a different subject.
You do not have a “right” to a driver’s license.
So if a state denies women or black people (as examples) driver’s licenses that is ok because it is not a “right”?
You’re veering off-subject. We were talking about the quote from Ayn Rand. Yes, from Ayn Rand’s perspective, it would not violate those “individual rights [that] are not subject to a public vote”. A driving license is granted by the state. Ayn Rand argues that the state cannot grant rights, they exist independently of the state. Like the right to marry - it exists independently of the state, and gays marry each other in every one of the 50 states, whether there is a anti-SSM law or constitutional amendment against it.
I would totally vote to take away peoples right to vote because clearly they are too stupid.
OK. This is a claim of fact, and it’s true that in past years, courts have relied on the idea that a person’s sexual orientation is not immutable to find that they were not entitled to elevated scrutiny.
However, this claim is, in my view, no longer sustainable in light of current understanding.
So what, specifically, are you relying upon to believe that sexual orientation does not qualify as “immutable” for the purposes of Footnote Four discussion?
The Biblical arguments against gay marriage are weak (IMO), but not for this reason. The arrangements you describe (half-sibing marriage, concubines, multiple wives) are described in the Bible but not “OK’ed.” Nowhere does God in the Bible command or encourage any of these relationships. It’s analagous to slavery, which is described but not proscribed. And a wider reading of the Scriptures gives a pretty good argument against slavery and incestuous/multiple marriages which is why Christians played a big role in the abolitionist and civil rights movements. The problem is too many Christians focus way too narrowly on a couple of verses and use them to justify their ‘ick’ response to homosexuality.
Correct.
However, the state cannot capriciously award benefits to some classes of people and deny them to others.
A law that awards benefits to a certain class and denies them to another class must be defended at least on the grounds of rational basis. And if the classes involved are suspect classes, then the law must survive a higher level of scrutiny.
And the class of homosexual persons should be considered a suspect class, by the reasoning enunciated in “Footnote Four.”
Again, I am not arguing law here. I am arguing the Rand view on the matter. As pertains to the Ayn Rand quote presented upthread: “Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).”
People can say they are married in their hearts all they want. Goody for them. When I was seven I was in love with one of my classmates (cute French girl no less) and we pledged our love for each other and had a pretend ceremony and everything with other friends as witnesses. The state couldn’t stop us (or our parents).
Of course that marriage was meaningless as no one recognized it (and of course we promptly forgot all about it being seven). The marriage in society is only relevant in terms of the effects it confers which are 100% granted by the state (which is an extension of the society).
Perhaps some mixed-race couple in the anti-miscegenation south got married hidden away in someone’s basement. Maybe they had a minister and everything. So what? Ayn Rand would in this case say that is just peachy because the state cannot grant (or take away) the right to be married?
If the state had found out they would be prosecuted (as the plaintiffs in Loving v. Virginia were).
I submit that the state can incentivize or punish people for certain acts no matter how inalienable those rights may be.
Benefits granted by the state are not a “right” that Ayn Rand talked about in the quote presented.
That prosecution would have been against the “individual right” that Ayn Rand was talking about. I am not sure why you’re bringing this up, since there is no prosecution of gays getting married that I know of. Can you point to some such prosecution?
A man can have sex with men on day x and claim to be a homosexual then have sex with women on day y and claim to be heterosexual. There is no test we can perform on that man to determine if he J’s truly one or the other. Moreover, even speaking in terms of one or the other doesn’t necessarily make sense given that many people claim to have sexual feelings toward both genders.
A person isn’t a minority for EP purposes if they can choose whether to be in the minority group or not (by claiming or not to be gay).
Ok. Just don’t think you scored some points or whatever based on my lack of response.
Race is, at this point, much the same: a person is considered the race they consider themselves to be. Religion is the same: a person is generally considered to be the religion they consider themselves to be. Am I wrong?
I do not think any state as passed a law saying same sex marriages are illegal. They passed laws saying they essentially do not recognize them as married.
As such the same-sex couple is still being punished by being denied access to the same benefits (as noted above) that married couples do. Group A gets something, Group B doesn’t because we don’t like them.
I also have no doubt that some states would actually criminalize SSM if they could but they realize that is a bridge too far at least for the time being.
A discussion of Rand and inalienable or god given rights is fine in a philosophy class and may even serve to inform policy makers. It is an abstraction though that ignores the realities of the world.
In the end we live in society and the society, via its laws, is where the rubber of those philosophies hits the road.
Claiming something is not the same as being something.
Is it common for people to sit down at some point in their life and ponder whether they want to be gay or straight? Maybe sit with a notebook and check off the pros and cons?
Most gay men I know, while perfectly happy with who they are, have told me no one in their right mind would willingly choose to be gay considering all the bullshit that comes with it.
Religion cases invoke strict scrutiny based on the fundamental right implicated, not based on religious persons as a suspect class. The concept of race as a suspect class is rooted in a animmutable concept of race that J’s definitely different than the concept of race asserted by some people now, but that current difference doesn’t change the EP analysis–it is still premised on there being such a thing as race that a person cannot change about themselves.