Well, that’s one view on what “rights” are: they’re whatever the law/Constitution/government says we have a right to.
Another view is that rights are things that people have naturally (“endowed by their Creator”) until somebody infringes upon them. SSM opponents who think this way would simply say that there is no natural right to marry someone of one’s own sex.
What’s your definition of what makes something a “right”?
Quoted for truth. I think this is a big part of it. People who vote against same-sex marriage don’t think of what they’re doing as taking people’s rights away, but as upholding traditional values. In their mental image of “the way things ought to be,” men don’t marry other men, and women don’t marry other women.
It’s kind of funny how many atheists are proponents of the religious assertion of ‘inalienable rights’.
Living in NH, I will tell you what I’ve heard from some people: they think they are going to lose their “rights” to “protect their kids” from hearing about same-sex marriage in public schools. See this ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FijVUbUlV3s
(…which is why, as a hetero married mom of a kindergartener in public schools, I wrote to thank my legislator for voting in support of SSM here in NH, because those vocal people do not speak for me.)
A slight distinguo, friend – while “inalienable rights” is generally classed as a Deist belief that has percolated into an American value, it’s not strictly religious but philosophical, metaphysical. Whether or not they are “endowed by their Creator” (Christian God or otherwise) with them, the conception is that rights inhere in the individual, and the role of governments is not to deny or disparage them, but guarantee and protect them. In other words, the belief in pre-existent abstract “natural rights” is not inimical to a religious belief, but it is not dependent on it.
Let me pose, as a hypothetical that is nearly trolling, but with the intention of exploring this concept apart from any issues related to homosexuality and its morality, a proposition.
In a state that is solidly Democratic, the legislature enacts the following: “Be it enacted, that on and after January the first next after passage of this act, the agencies and courts of this state shall not give recognition to any claim to be married advanced by any person who is a member of the Republican Party.”
It doesn’t deny anyone the right to marry the willing unwed unrelated adult partner of their choice’ it merely means that any such marriages will not be legally recognized if a partner to that marriage insists on remaining a Republican.
Why or why not would this law be valid? Would it be constitutional? Why or why not?
It’s my opinion that when you have a consistent rationale for the answer you give to that question, you will see claims to the right to marry someone of the same sex in a different light.
By and large the Deep South under Jim Crow wasn’t an example of “Right Wing Authoritarians”, most of the people were actually quite opposite of authoritarian in the context of the larger national politics of the time. It was just a simple example of blatant discrimination and racism against a particular group, period.
A right wing authoritarian is someone who believes in extremely high government power and government intrusion in day to day life, the whites who supported Jim Crow really didn’t believe in that, they just believed in discriminating against blacks.
Edit: Also, “right wing authoritarian” is a very specific type of political leaning and not one I’ve usually seen as being extremely popular in the United States, is there any actual cite that 25% of Americans would categorize themselves in such a way?
Not constitutional.
Because the right to marry a person without regard to their political affliation is a concept “deeply rooted in our nation’s history.”
And the right to marry a person of the same sex is not.
I’m a proponent of legal same-sex marriage, but you cannot make this argument unchallenged, Polycarp. I support SSM, but acknowledge it as a change from the status quo. But one of the tests for due process protection is that a particular practice is deeply rooted in the history and tradition of the nation. Forbidding marriage based on political affiliation has no basis at all in our history. Forbidding marriage to a partner of the same sex does. And that test is one that’s enshrined in law.
Because it wasn’t necessary, as the homosexuals who weren’t hiding their orientation for fear of their life were most likely in jail. Or in an institution, having their body hooked up to a generator twice a day.
It’s only since about 25-30 years ago (here in the US) that we degenerates have been allowed to live and love openly without being beaten to death by a mob or tossed into jail or locked up as insane.
They didn’t put them into camps, they put them into lunatic asylums and jails though.
But in some ways you are an exceptional individual. People rant to have products they don’t like or approve of removed every day. People vote the rights of others away on a regular basis; ask anyone who owns a firearm.
It mostly comes down to you and your own personal life. If you see something as not coming under your roof, affecting your own life, its easy to vote against it. Especially when some of those against it are so loud and relentless; that still can sway the average voter.
The first two phrases are correct, but that last isn’t.
He really does believe this shit, which is why he vomits it up twice a week and dumps it on the SDMB. It might be better in some ways if he were trolling, but he isn’t.
It is not all that uncommon to assume that other people think the way I do. If I think in terms of hate, I assume other people do too.
Regards,
Shodan
But the right to equal protection of the laws IS.
We’ve been over this many times.
This is a Scalian, which is to say unfairly narrow, framing of the debate. You may as well call it a “right to homosexual sodomy,” the way Scalia did, and then it will sound even more ridiculous. How about a right to marry, period?
Nope. I wouldn’t.
You aren’t equating blacks and slavery and reconstruction with gay marriage are you? If I were black I’d be very offended.
It’s hard to say for sure, but a lot of people think homosexuality is simply wrong. Some people may not think it isn’t necessarily wrong, but don’t want the state to endorse it. Some people just don’t like the idea of having to explain it to their kids, and they don’t want it in the public sphere.
It was not too long ago that SSM was simply unthinkable for the vast majority of people in the US. It shouldn’t be a surprise that it’s going to take time for people to change. Blacks fought for decades for civil rights. We literally had riots in the streets, the National Guard at schools, etc.
Implementing SSM is a change, and people have to be convinced that the change is good. Sadly, that just takes time.
Gay marriage isn’t the same as slavery. It is however exactly the same as anti-miscegenation laws that kept whites and blacks from intermarrying.
(I’m not a US citizen)
I think the key, as many have noted, is that they don’t see any rights being taken away, because there is no real history of gay marriage in the US or anywhere in the world. Doesn’t make it right per se, but IT IS a change and people would rather that change not happen.
ALso, the proponents have to be able to offer olive branches to many people who like me don’t want SSM but recognise that there are SS couples who need legal benefits and protection and think something could be worked out. I’m sure it’s not the ideal for them and sure it takes being a better person than I possibly am, but I can imagine intermediate solutions and incremental steps making the transition much easier for both sides.
How about it?
Several state courts have found such a right grounded in their state constitutions. In some of them, the electorate has subsequently approved an amendment advising the courts that their interpretation was mistaken. In three, the ruling has survived: Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa. Two other states have SSM by legislative action as opposed to court ruling.
In forty-five states and the federal system, there is no “right to marry, period.”
So you tell me: how about it? You may assert that such a right exists all you want, but I’m telling you that there is no such national recognition of that method of analysis.
This is quoted for truth, and to point out that when SSM comes about by judicial rule, it’s acceptance is tenuous and may well be voted down by the electorate. Indeed, to date the electorate has NEVER accepted an SSM bill… exactly the state of affairs that has prompted this thread.
I have been thrilled to see New Hampshire and Vermont take action by their legislatures, which are (or supposed to be) the voice of the people. This is the way change should come, for practical and ideological reasons.