Pledging to Disobey a Supreme Court Ruling

[naturalmwa]

You need to first define a "right", do you agree with this one? From MW:

2: something to which one has a just claim: as
a : the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled

While I favor your position in this debate, I feel compelled to point out that the definition you provided doesn't clear up the issue. The first part "something to which one has a just claim" fits Phantom's position nicely. That baby in the Soviet Union might very well have a just claim to cry in the street. I don't believe thats sufficient for a thing to be a right, its simply a desire or a just desire even.

The second part of the definition gets to my thinking and I think yours that a right must be enforcible. If you can't act on a right, its not real. I have the right to get married in Iowa. I don't have that right in Texas. I can stomp my feet all day at some Texas courthouse and I will not get a marriage license there. My right to marry in Texas simply doesn't exist. If SCOTUS rules the way I hope, that right will materialize over night. Its not like that right always existed but was just hiding in the "bush" so to speak. Rights are man made legal constructs, gods or nature have nothing to do with them.

 

[PhantomFlyer]

I am only "basically" saying that if you ignore my post, wherein I specifically discuss people. A government is just a collection of people.

This kind of statement just flat out doesn't make sense:
"Just because the Soviet Union didn't protect the rights of it's citizens to free speech, doesn't mean the people weren't born with those rights. "

Use science. Prove they had a "right" to anything. You can't, because all demonstrable tests would show they did not. (interestingly, most of our "American" rights were, in fact, codified by the Soviet constitution). If they were "born with" those "rights", how would they know, how would they be asserted, how would they be protected? Obviously they wouldn't, and they didn't.

Ok, answer this: You, PhantomFlyer, were born with the "right" of "religious freedom". Ok, now what? What does that mean?

You ignore (or fail to comprehend) the most important aspect of what that very quote means: It must be written and protected for it to be a right. That, specifically, is why they wrote it down and passed it as law. It would be redundant otherwise. Jefferson knew this, the founders knew this.

For bloody common sense man, they had a convention to decide what rights to include. If they were "unalienable" and "endowed by their Creator" that would not only be superfluous, but a hindrance to the actual idea that they were "born" with them.

You need to first define a "right", do you agree with this one? From MW:

2: something to which one has a just claim: as
a : the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled

" It must be written and protected for it to be a right. That, specifically, is why they wrote it down and passed it as law. It would be redundant otherwise. Jefferson knew this, the founders knew this."

No, it doesn't. Jefferson would be the first to tell you it didn't become a right because he wrote those words down. If that was the case then it wouldn't be Inalienable. They wouldn't be self-evident. They are natural rights. We don't obtain the rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness from the gov't, those are natural rights we each obtain by our birth.

Now, I don't disagree the rights you listed are defined by the gov't.

Definition of a natural right: "rights that can't be repealed or restrained by human laws"

You are talking about legal rights, which are defined and given by the government.

 

[PhantomFlyer]

While I favor your position in this debate, I feel compelled to point out that the definition you provided doesn't clear up the issue. The first part "something to which one has a just claim" fits Phantom's position nicely. That baby in the Soviet Union might very well have a just claim to cry in the street. I don't believe thats sufficient for a thing to be a right, its simply a desire or a just desire even.

The second part of the definition gets to my thinking and I think yours that a right must be enforcible. If you can't act on a right, its not real. I have the right to get married in Iowa. I don't have that right in Texas. I can stomp my feet all day at some Texas courthouse and I will not get a marriage license there. My right to marry in Texas simply doesn't exist. If SCOTUS rules the way I hope, that right will materialize over night. Its not like that right always existed but was just hiding in the "bush" so to speak. Rights are man made legal constructs, gods or nature have nothing to do with them.

The right to marry is a legal right, not an inalienable right.

The gov't could get out of the marriage business altogether and it wouldn't violate our rights. Actually, this would be a perfectly acceptable position since marriage has now ventured far from it's original intent of the gov't sanctioning it (encouraging procreation, best interest of children, and family unity).

 

[naturalmwa]

The right to marry is a legal right, not an inalienable right.

I agree with this part, but legal rights are the only sort I think are real and the only sort I care about. Natural rights are an interesting philosophical fiction IMO.

 

[PhantomFlyer]

I agree with this part, but legal rights are the only sort I think are real and the only sort I care about. Natural rights are an interesting philosophical fiction IMO.

That's fine and your "right". I think they are very important but to each his own.

 

[naturalmwa]

That's fine and your "right". I think they are very important but to each his own.

I know, that's part of why I missed talking with you. Glad you're back m8.

 

[theIowaHawk]

" It must be written and protected for it to be a right. That, specifically, is why they wrote it down and passed it as law. It would be redundant otherwise. Jefferson knew this, the founders knew this."

No, it doesn't. Jefferson would be the first to tell you it didn't become a right because he wrote those words down. If that was the case then it wouldn't be Inalienable. They wouldn't be self-evident. They are natural rights. We don't obtain the rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness from the gov't, those are natural rights we each obtain by our birth.

Now, I don't disagree the rights you listed are defined by the gov't.

Definition of a natural right: "rights that can't be repealed or restrained by human laws"

You are talking about legal rights, which are defined and given by the government.

Then why the necessity to have a convention, agree, write them down, and then vote on them?

I have no problem with you claiming to have all sorts of natural rights, people have been claiming that throughout the history of man. But, you seem to be claiming that there is a set, deliniated, and material list of those natural rights...and you point to Jefferson for having coined them "unalienable". So, again I ask my above question.

You clearly want to make this a You vs. Government issue, and I'm not part of that. The government, as I said previously, is a group of people. I get it, you hate the federal government, I don't care. For my purposes, and the obvious purposes of my posts, the group is what determines and enforces the "rights". Watch Mad Max, or any other apocalyptic thriller, a large and powerful enough group can grant/enforce/remove rights, because they have the resources to do so, but when a larger, more powerful group comes along, those rights are changed/eliminated/improved.

You can certainly say all along that you have the right to "life/liberty/happiness" just like you can claim you have the right to murder/rape whom you so desire, without something/somebody enforcing/protecting that right, what is the "right" actually doing?

CLEARLY everything involved in this thread and this message board are discussing what you want to term "legal rights", it is a question about the government, the SCOTUS, presidential candidates. The discussion is around whether States (you know, government) or the Federal get to determine status of marriage. States don't exist except within what we create. Why does Iowa end at the Mississippi? Because we agreed to say so. Why can't I murder whom I please? Because the law says otherwise, and we enforce that law. Our rights exist within the principles and constructs that we created.

What was created by a group of people (government?) The Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Without those, claim you have "natural rights" all you want, but the rest of us know why Jefferson and the founders agreed on them and wrote them down.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Ok, so boiling it down to Natural Rights, as always feel free to correct me.
Man has natural, god-given rights that cannot be taken away.

So Cain, Able and Seth all had the right to life/liberty/pursue happiness. Cain murdered Able, depriving him of all of those.

How does a natural right fit in to this? How does it fit in vis-a-vis those three brothers, each with individual rights?

 

[PhantomFlyer]

Then why the necessity to have a convention, agree, write them down, and then vote on them?

I have no problem with you claiming to have all sorts of natural rights, people have been claiming that throughout the history of man. But, you seem to be claiming that there is a set, deliniated, and material list of those natural rights...and you point to Jefferson for having coined them "unalienable". So, again I ask my above question.

You clearly want to make this a You vs. Government issue, and I'm not part of that. The government, as I said previously, is a group of people. I get it, you hate the federal government, I don't care. For my purposes, and the obvious purposes of my posts, the group is what determines and enforces the "rights". Watch Mad Max, or any other apocalyptic thriller, a large and powerful enough group can grant/enforce/remove rights, because they have the resources to do so, but when a larger, more powerful group comes along, those rights are changed/eliminated/improved.

You can certainly say all along that you have the right to "life/liberty/happiness" just like you can claim you have the right to murder/rape whom you so desire, without something/somebody enforcing/protecting that right, what is the "right" actually doing?

CLEARLY everything involved in this thread and this message board are discussing what you want to term "legal rights", it is a question about the government, the SCOTUS, presidential candidates. The discussion is around whether States (you know, government) or the Federal get to determine status of marriage. States don't exist except within what we create. Why does Iowa end at the Mississippi? Because we agreed to say so. Why can't I murder whom I please? Because the law says otherwise, and we enforce that law. Our rights exist within the principles and constructs that we created.

What was created by a group of people (government?) The Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Without those, claim you have "natural rights" all you want, but the rest of us know why Jefferson and the founders agreed on them and wrote them down.

" For my purposes, and the obvious purposes of my posts, the group is what determines and enforces the "rights". "

Agree, however, those are legal rights, not natural rights or inalienable rights.

"without something/somebody enforcing/protecting that right, what is the "right" actually doing? "

Again, don't disagree but that doesn't mean those right derived from the gov't, only that the gov't helps to safeguard those rights. It's a fine distinction but an important one. Without the distinction you are stuck with saying the rights come from the gov't and as such they have the right to take them away whenever they chose.

Why do you think Jefferson used the terms "self-evident" and inalienable if the our natural rights come from man and are only given by men putting these rights to paper? You seem to be getting lost amongst the trees and missing the forest.

Slavery violated the natural rights of black people (and others) in this country. The gov't right to own slaves might have made it a legal right but not an inalienable right. Go ahead and trust the gov't to give you all your rights. The old Soviet Union loved sheep like you.

 

[PhantomFlyer]

Ok, so boiling it down to Natural Rights, as always feel free to correct me.
Man has natural, god-given rights that cannot be taken away.

So Cain, Able and Seth all had the right to life/liberty/pursue happiness. Cain murdered Able, depriving him of all of those.

How does a natural right fit in to this? How does it fit in vis-a-vis those three brothers, each with individual rights?

Cain violated Abel's right to life. Not complicated. My right to life/liberty/pursuit of happiness doesn't allow me to infringe on someone else's right to life/liberty/pursuit of happiness. As you correctly said, Cain deprived Abel of all those.

 

[naturalmwa]

Cain violated Abel's right to life. Not complicated. My right to life/liberty/pursuit of happiness doesn't allow me to infringe on someone else's right to life/liberty/pursuit of happiness. As you correctly said, Cain deprived Abel of all those.

If liberty and pursuit of happiness means anything at all wouldn't it mean the right to form a family with the one you love?

 

[at4iowa]

" For my purposes, and the obvious purposes of my posts, the group is what determines and enforces the "rights". "

Agree, however, those are legal rights, not natural rights or inalienable rights.

"without something/somebody enforcing/protecting that right, what is the "right" actually doing? "

Again, don't disagree but that doesn't mean those right derived from the gov't, only that the gov't helps to safeguard those rights. It's a fine distinction but an important one. Without the distinction you are stuck with saying the rights come from the gov't and as such they have the right to take them away whenever they chose.

Why do you think Jefferson used the terms "self-evident" and inalienable if the our natural rights come from man and are only given by men putting these rights to paper? You seem to be getting lost amongst the trees and missing the forest.

I think our founding fathers believed that we have certain inalienable rights and they wanted to basically say, "you know, I think we all agree that as humans we have the right to be free and pursue happiness and not be killed for what we may or may not believe in." It's kind of interesting that these words were written in the foundation of a country that hadn't abolished slavery which pretty much goes against every inalienable right.

Bottom line: It looks like we need to clearly define what our rights are. The government COULD pass laws to take away our rights, but that would pretty much end the United States as we know it. To that end, even our inalienable rights are "legal" rights as well.

 

[PhantomFlyer]

If liberty and pursuit of happiness means anything at all wouldn't it mean the right to form a family with the one you love?

You don't need gov't sanctioned "marriage" to do this.

 

[joelbc1]

I'm guessing they punt and say they have zero jurisdiction, and send it back to the states to decide. which is what they should have done with the aca.

And then NOTHING is solved because States that do not recognize "gay/lesbian" marriage can openly discriminate against these folks by denying them rights normally extended to a traditionally married couple. These rights would include rights of property transfer in case of death or marriage, visitation rights afforded to traditional couples, various and assorted tax benefits, and on and on......
Using your line of thinking OiT, "Jim Crowe" laws should have been left to stand back in the 60's.

 

[naturalmwa]

You don't need gov't sanctioned "marriage" to do this.

But it's still my liberty to pursue happiness in this way, correct?

 

[naturalmwa]

I might, and it's still my liberty to pursue happiness in this way, correct?

 

[at4iowa]

You don't need gov't sanctioned "marriage" to do this.

Wrong. You absolutely need government sanctioned gay marriage for gay people to have the same rights as us straight folk. Let's say you are a gay man and have been living with another guy for 30 years and have essentially lived like a married couple. You have shared your life in every way and have had long discussions about how you would like to live and die. Unfortunately, your partner gets hit by a car, can't talk and is on life support. Guess what, if his family doesn't like you, you can't even visit his bedside because you don't have the right (as a true marrieds spouse would) to be there if the family doesn't want you there. Is that fair? Is that how you want to treat people?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Why do you think Jefferson used the terms "self-evident" and inalienable if the our natural rights come from man and are only given by men putting these rights to paper?

Two reasons.

First, Jefferson thought the basic rights that he and the thinkers of the Enlightenment were talking about were obvious (hence self-evident) and logically sound (hence inalienable).

Second, you are wrong about the "only given by putting to paper" part. The secular body of thought doesn't require rights to be put to paper - although that seems like a decent idea as long as you remember to have something like the 9th amendment. Rather there's a presumption of freedom to act that has to be rebutted. In other words, we have a vast panoply of rights and pretty much anything you can think of begins as a presumptive right. If you don't want someone to do something, it's on you to justify interfering with his right, his liberty.

 

[aflachawk]

Wrong. You absolutely need government sanctioned gay marriage for gay people to have the same rights as us straight folk. Let's say you are a gay man and have been living with another guy for 30 years and have essentially lived like a married couple. You have shared your life in every way and have had long discussions about how you would like to live and die. Unfortunately, your partner gets hit by a car, can't talk and is on life support. Guess what, if his family doesn't like you, you can't even visit his bedside because you don't have the right (as a true marrieds spouse would) to be there if the family doesn't want you there. Is that fair? Is that how you want to treat people?

States can bestow these rights without the word marriage being attached

 

[at4iowa]

States can bestow these rights without the word marriage being attached

Please give an example of this in practice.

 

[PhantomFlyer]

But it's still my liberty to pursue happiness in this way, correct?

You can pursue whatever you chose, but it doesn't mean you need the gov't involved in the marriage business. There's been times in history when it wasn't.

 

[PhantomFlyer]

Wrong. You absolutely need government sanctioned gay marriage for gay people to have the same rights as us straight folk. Let's say you are a gay man and have been living with another guy for 30 years and have essentially lived like a married couple. You have shared your life in every way and have had long discussions about how you would like to live and die. Unfortunately, your partner gets hit by a car, can't talk and is on life support. Guess what, if his family doesn't like you, you can't even visit his bedside because you don't have the right (as a true marrieds spouse would) to be there if the family doesn't want you there. Is that fair? Is that how you want to treat people?

He didn't specify gay marriage. Gov't doesn't need to be involved in the marriage business. Also, gay couples don't need marriage to have the same rights as straight folks. This could be handled via civil unions, contracts. I have no problem with those.

 

[naturalmwa]

You can pursue whatever you chose, but it doesn't mean you need the gov't involved in the marriage business. There's been times in history when it wasn't.

That doesn't change that fact that it is involved and it makes me happy to express my liberty with a marriage certificate. Seems to me you have defined a marriage to a spouse of my choice as both a legal and a natural right. A right doesn't need to be a necessity, happiness nor liberty is a necessity strictly speaking. But you claim they are rights, so you should be my ally in this. Who knows, you may catch Warren Buffet's eye one day and want to get same sex hitched too. I'll support your liberty to preach that I'm hell bound if that makes you happy. Fair?

 

[Buck McCoy]

Flaw #1 with the new site: I can't ignore oit's idiocy anymore.

 

[PhantomFlyer]

Two reasons.

First, Jefferson thought the basic rights that he and the thinkers of the Enlightenment were talking about were obvious (hence self-evident) and logically sound (hence inalienable).

Second, you are wrong about the "only given by putting to paper" part. The secular body of thought doesn't require rights to be put to paper - although that seems like a decent idea as long as you remember to have something like the 9th amendment. Rather there's a presumption of freedom to act that has to be rebutted. In other words, we have a vast panoply of rights and pretty much anything you can think of begins as a presumptive right. If you don't want someone to do something, it's on you to justify interfering with his right, his liberty.

1) Agree. That's natural rights.

2) I agree that "rights don't need to be put on paper", it's the point I'm arguing. IowaHawk is saying it's not a right until it's been gov't sanctioned. I disagree with this although many of what we call "rights" are rights given to us from the gov't (the right to a speedy trial for example).

 

[naturalmwa]

Flaw #1 with the new site: I can't ignore oit's idiocy anymore.

Yes you can. Click the poster's name (on the left under their avatar) and you get a black box. Across the top there are 4 options, profile, convo, follow and ignore.

 

[Buck McCoy]

Yes you can. Click the poster's name (on the left under their avatar) and you get a black box. Across the top there are 4 options, profile, convo, follow and ignore.

My apologies.

To the site. Not to OiT for being a raving lunatic.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Cain violated Abel's right to life. Not complicated. My right to life/liberty/pursuit of happiness doesn't allow me to infringe on someone else's right to life/liberty/pursuit of happiness. As you correctly said, Cain deprived Abel of all those.

Ok, so they both had a right to life. There was a total of 3 people (5?) on earth. 1/3 of those people violated another 1/3. So what evidence was there of a "right"? It seems the evidence would point to their not being a right, as it did nothing, and resulted in nothing.

If Cain's right to life/liberty/happiness "didn't allow him to infringe on someone else's", how was he able to?

Rights are only there, even in philosophy, if they can/are protected/enforced. If not, then they simply do not exist.

 

[PhantomFlyer]

That doesn't change that fact that it is involved and it makes me happy to express my liberty with a marriage certificate. Seems to me you have defined a marriage to a spouse of my choice as both a legal and a natural right. A right doesn't need to be a necessity, happiness nor liberty is a necessity strictly speaking. But you claim they are rights, so you should be my ally in this. Who knows, you may catch Warren Buffet's eye one day and want to get same sex hitched too. I'll support your liberty to preach that I'm hell bound if that makes you happy. Fair?

No, I don't think marriage is a natural right, it is a legal right. However, the state can define marriage based on the criteria it chooses, as long as it doesn't violate the Constitution. States have laws (like age) to determine who can and can't get married. The gov't got into the marriage business to promote procreation, best interest of children, and family unity, however, given divorce rates, out of wedlock births, etc, one could argue it's an overly idealistic/antiquated concept and the gov't should get out of the marriage business altogether and let people handle the legal issues via civil contracts (which would not have to constitute marriage).

 

[theIowaHawk]

"

Again, don't disagree but that doesn't mean those right derived from the gov't,

Let me be very clear: Rights cannot, nor ever have, been "derived from the gov't." Government is a theoretical term, it can not act on its own. The People = Government, Government = People. Rights can only be derived from people.

Why do you think Jefferson used the terms "self-evident" and inalienable if the our natural rights come from man and are only given by men putting these rights to paper? You seem to be getting lost amongst the trees and missing the forest.

No, I think the opposite is true. If these things were, in fact, self-evident, they wouldn't have needed to be debated, nor written down, nor agreed to by the people. Jefferson was much more intelligent than that. He knew that WE, the people, had to agree on what the rights were and write them down, or they would not exist.

Slavery violated the natural rights of black people (and others) in this country. The gov't right to own slaves might have made it a legal right but not an inalienable right. Go ahead and trust the gov't to give you all your rights. The old Soviet Union loved sheep like you.

You have a poor, poor understanding of the Soviet Union, and especially its people. I won't get in to the details of your ignorance on that issue, but believing that they relied on/trusted/required government insults, to the core, the nature of the Slavic people.

Your contention about slavery simply does not follow. "government" as you keep wanting to term it to have an antagonist, did not create nor "legalize" slavery to begin with. Man "created" slavery. If these was, in fact, a right to not be a slave, (especially if self-evident and granted by God), then it wouldn't have existed. Do you think some Monolith left by aliens is the "Government" and that it grants/takes away rights? Slavery was perpetrated by people, against other people, and depending which version of the Bible you follow, with the approval of God.

 

[theIowaHawk]

... the state can define marriage based on the criteria it chooses, as long as it doesn't violate the Constitution. .

Bingo. This is it. Head of nail? Meet hammer.

And who gets to/should determine whether it violates the Constitution? The SCOTUS....well unless they disagree with me, then IMPEACHMENT!

 

[theIowaHawk]

States have laws (like age) to determine who can and can't get married.

Let's see if you know the answer: State A requires marriage participants to be 16 years of age. State B does not. Does State A recognize State B's marriage?

Oh, also, feel free to cite to your legislative intent showing your theory of why marriage was codified by the States.

 

[naturalmwa]

No, I don't think marriage is a natural right, it is a legal right. However, the state can define marriage based on the criteria it chooses, as long as it doesn't violate the Constitution. States have laws (like age) to determine who can and can't get married. The gov't got into the marriage business to promote procreation, best interest of children, and family unity, however, given divorce rates, out of wedlock births, etc, one could argue it's an overly idealistic/antiquated concept and the gov't should get out of the marriage business altogether and let people handle the legal issues via civil contracts (which would not have to constitute marriage).

That might point to another disagreement. I think those civil contracts would constitute marriage. Marriage is any legal union of people into a family.

 

[theIowaHawk]

That might point to another disagreement. I think those civil contracts would constitute marriage. Marriage is any legal union of people into a family.

I've never understood this about the "civil union" proponents. They A) don't think anyone (other than them) has a right to Marriage, but B) They want the Government to accept and recognize this "civil union". How that can be viewed as somehow solving the original issue is beyond me.

IMO, It is quite clear that these proponents believe that only Religion (theirs, specifically) gets to use the word marriage. And if somebody else gets to f**** that word up, then nobody gets to use it (except them, religiously).

It is the same thing, with different words. If that is true, then there is no legitimate government purpose to label them differently.

 

[at4iowa]

He didn't specify gay marriage. Gov't doesn't need to be involved in the marriage business. Also, gay couples don't need marriage to have the same rights as straight folks. This could be handled via civil unions, contracts. I have no problem with those.

I don't think civil unions offer the same rights/protections as marriage does. My tax forms don't have a "civil union filing jointly" box to check. There are also problems with federal pension benefits, life insurance claims, etc. It's just not the same as marriage. If you don't want the gov't involved in marriage at all, fine. Let's just make everything civil unions and not offer any tax benefits for marriage or collection of pension, etc. That would start to make things equal.

 

[PhantomFlyer]

Ok, so they both had a right to life. There was a total of 3 people (5?) on earth. 1/3 of those people violated another 1/3. So what evidence was there of a "right"? It seems the evidence would point to their not being a right, as it did nothing, and resulted in nothing.

If Cain's right to life/liberty/happiness "didn't allow him to infringe on someone else's", how was he able to?

Rights are only there, even in philosophy, if they can/are protected/enforced. If not, then they simply do not exist.

I don't remember God condoning Cain's actions. I certainly don't think Abel thought it resulted in nothing:

"And he said, "What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground. And now [art] thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand; When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth." (Genesis 4:10-4:12)"

It's basic natural law.

Again, I disagree with you final sentence. The right exist it's just not protected/enforced. I know you think this a distinction without a difference but I disagree. I will concede your rights don't mean much in practicality if they aren't protected/enforced by the gov't. We are now venturing into the philosophical and dealing with a fine line. Gov't plays an important role in our exercise of our rights, and I'm not advocating no gov't.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

That might point to another disagreement. I think those civil contracts would constitute marriage. Marriage is any legal union of people into a family.

While sensible on the surface this doesn't clear up the mess. Religions want to own the word and definition of "marriage." Marriage is and will be the "good" version if that is allowed and civil unions - or whatever you end up calling them - will carry second class status.

Try this experiment. Offer religious folks a compromise such that "marriage" is the term that we agree to use for the legal (government) arrangement, while religions get to perform all the civil unions they want and to discriminate against civil unions for gays if they choose to do so. How many who are arguing against gay marriage would take that deal? If, as I said, they want to own marriage and relegate other unions to 2nd class status, they won't take that compromise. But if all they want is a religious institution that religions can control as they see fit, what's the big deal? If I'm right, why should those of us who want marriage to be open to all give up ownership of that term and that institution?

Religious folk want to claim that marriage was always between a man and a woman. Plenty of historical evidence against that involving various sorts of group marriages. They also want to claim that marriages were originally religious pairings, performed by priests and shamen and such. No good evidence for that. The earliest marriages were all prehistoric. Could just as easily have been the tribal elders or the alpha male or some other secular party or office who officiated. We'll never know. And what difference would it make if we could ever settle that question? Would religions suddenly change their tune if we could prove that the first marriages were conducted by hunting chiefs?

The bottom line is that marriage ought to mean whatever it makes sense for it to mean in the current culture. The reactionary version being fought for by the Religious Right clearly doesn't fit modern America. So we muddle our way toward a better arrangement.

Most reasonable people think uncommitted consenting adults should be free to marry any other uncommitted consenting adult of their choice. Even many religious people agree with this unless or until the indoctrination brigades start their mumbo-jumbo to cow them into line.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I don't remember God condoning Cain's actions. I certainly don't think Abel thought it resulted in nothing:

"And he said, "What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground. And now [art] thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand; When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth." (Genesis 4:10-4:12)"

It's basic natural law.

Again, I disagree with you final sentence. The right exist it's just not protected/enforced. I know you think this a distinction without a difference but I disagree. I will concede your rights don't mean much in practicality if they aren't protected/enforced by the gov't. We are now venturing into the philosophical and dealing with a fine line. Gov't plays an important role in our exercise of our rights, and I'm not advocating no gov't.

Cain followed God's vegetarian instructions, raised crops and offered them to God. Abel violated those not-yet-changed rules from the Garden, raised livestock and offered God cooked meat.

God, showing the capriciousness that was often on display in the OT, even from the very beginning, favored the rule-breaking Abel. Cain got justifiably pissed and, having been made in God's image, behaved in a godly fashion by taking matters into his own hands, and smiting the transgressor. Thereby weeding out the strongest strain of cheating from the gene pool.

Obviously Cain failed to correct God's flawed design, but at least he tried.

 

[PhantomFlyer]

Let me be very clear: Rights cannot, nor ever have, been "derived from the gov't." Government is a theoretical term, it can not act on its own. The People = Government, Government = People. Rights can only be derived from people.

Why do you think Jefferson used the terms "self-evident" and inalienable if the our natural rights come from man and are only given by men putting these rights to paper? You seem to be getting lost amongst the trees and missing the forest.

No, I think the opposite is true. If these things were, in fact, self-evident, they wouldn't have needed to be debated, nor written down, nor agreed to by the people. Jefferson was much more intelligent than that. He knew that WE, the people, had to agree on what the rights were and write them down, or they would not exist.

Slavery violated the natural rights of black people (and others) in this country. The gov't right to own slaves might have made it a legal right but not an inalienable right. Go ahead and trust the gov't to give you all your rights. The old Soviet Union loved sheep like you.

You have a poor, poor understanding of the Soviet Union, and especially its people. I won't get in to the details of your ignorance on that issue, but believing that they relied on/trusted/required government insults, to the core, the nature of the Slavic people.

Your contention about slavery simply does not follow. "government" as you keep wanting to term it to have an antagonist, did not create nor "legalize" slavery to begin with. Man "created" slavery. If these was, in fact, a right to not be a slave, (especially if self-evident and granted by God), then it wouldn't have existed. Do you think some Monolith left by aliens is the "Government" and that it grants/takes away rights? Slavery was perpetrated by people, against other people, and depending which version of the Bible you follow, with the approval of God.

1) Now that's a distinction without a difference. Elected officials make up the gov't, and the rights are derived from them, hence the gov't. The people are you or I and we can't derive rights by ourselves, only through elected officials (and some countries don't even have elected officials).

2) I disagree. There's no need to use the terms "self evident" or "inalienable", if they are only what he put on paper. They are neither self evident or inalienable if he then has to list them. Again, the enumerated rights (in the bill of rights) are limits on the gov't. They are not specifically the natural rights he's talking about in the DofI.

3) It was a joke, although to think people didn't get indoctrinated, in part, to the Soviet totalitarianism is naive. Many of the people were useful idiots. Much like FDR and Bill Donovan were useful idiots when negotiating with the Soviet Union during WWII, and basically giving them Eastern Europe unchecked (because we can trust the Soviets). We have our useful idiots in this country that cheer on Obama's seizing of congressional authority.

In this country gov't (elected officials) did legalize slavery, as they did Jim Crow laws in the south after slavery was abolished by this same gov't. I didn't say people (outside of gov't officials) didn't violate the natural rights of black people who were slaves. Of course they did but you are the one who's saying our rights come from people who write laws. Why are you switching the discussion the people who have no ability to protect/enforce your rights? You've been telling us that rights are meaningless unless they have the protection/enforcement of gov't/laws, so it doesn't matter if Abolitionists were fighting against slavery laws.
Slavery in the bible wasn't the same thing as slavery in this country and it hardly met with God's approval. Just because sinful people created laws to condone their sinful ways (like they did with divorce in the OT), doesn't mean this is how God wanted them to conduct themselves.

"If these was, in fact, a right to not be a slave, (especially if self-evident and granted by God), then it wouldn't have existed. "

Nonsense. Why would you assume this? People didn't want to be a slave. It was not a good thing or something people wanted to be. Why? Because it violates natural law, our desire to be free. Using your logic, the right to life is not an inalienable right because people are murdered and therefore if it was an inalienable right murder wouldn't exist.

 

[PhantomFlyer]

Bingo. This is it. Head of nail? Meet hammer.

And who gets to/should determine whether it violates the Constitution? The SCOTUS....well unless they disagree with me, then IMPEACHMENT!

Duh