Where does Obama stand on gay rights?

[Jon Miller]

They can be, they just need to have a different argument other than that they are a right.

JM

[Ben Kenobi]

That would make them a custom. All societies have customs.

[MrFun]

You can't argue in support of something because it is a right when such a right is a new right, not held generally in the past/etc.

JM

So it was wrong to pass the Fourteenth Amendment and Fifteenth Amendment in nineteenth century because they were so revolutionary.

[Jon Miller]

When did I ever say that it is wrong to allow gay marriage?

I have just said that it is not a right that is being denied.

I am perfectly happy to support an ammendment. I think it would overall benefit society.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Also, there had been the notion of blacks having citizenship before the 14th ammendment. There isn't anything 'revolutionary' about the 14th ammendment, nor is it creating some right that had not previously existed.

Also, previously, there had been a history of blacks being able to vote, and former slaves being able to vote and hold power/etc. So the 15th ammendment was also not revolutionary.

You are taking the extreme perversion of rights that was in the US for a couple hundred years, and applying that as the standard, and saying that these laws were revolutionary/etc. However, the ideas has been around and even common in places before.

The only precident I have seen for gay marriage is in Rome, and I am unsure if it was really common there or just something the noble class did.

JM

[MrFun]

Also, there had been the notion of blacks having citizenship before the 14th ammendment. There isn't anything 'revolutionary' about the 14th ammendment, nor is it creating some right that had not previously existed.

Also, previously, there had been a history of blacks being able to vote, and former slaves being able to vote and hold power/etc. So the 15th ammendment was also not revolutionary.

You are taking the extreme perversion of rights that was in the US for a couple hundred years, and applying that as the standard, and saying that these laws were revolutionary/etc. However, the ideas has been around and even common in places before.

The only precident I have seen for gay marriage is in Rome, and I am unsure if it was really common there or just something the noble class did.

JM

True enough. Even back during the ratification process on the U.S. Constitution, blacks in some of the northern states were eligible voters.

[MrFun]

Can somone explain to me how proving that anti-mescegenation laws were an anamoly rather than the norm proves at same time that such anti-mescegenation laws were wrong or unjust?

The anti-mescegenation laws did not deny blacks the freedom to marry.

[Jon Miller]

To argue that something is a right, and should not be denied, is an argument that it is self-evident. Now soceities have customs/ideas that come and go, and so you have to look at precident for whether something is self-evident.

The self-evident things were guarunteed initially. Other things were added to them.

If gay marriage is added then that is fine. Whether in a law or as a constitutional ammendment. To say that it is self-evident is not a good argument though. Therefore if it isn't a law or constitutional ammendment, it is incorrect for justices to rule that it is a right.

Also, in the US we normally refer to rights as those that are self-evident or constitutional ammendments.

JM

[MrFun]

To argue that something is a right, and should not be denied, is an argument that it is self-evident. Now soceities have customs/ideas that come and go, and so you have to look at precident for whether something is self-evident.

The self-evident things were guarunteed initially. Other things were added to them.

If gay marriage is added then that is fine. Whether in a law or as a constitutional ammendment. To say that it is self-evident is not a good argument though. Therefore if it isn't a law or constitutional ammendment, it is incorrect for justices to rule that it is a right.

Also, in the US we normally refer to rights as those that are self-evident or constitutional ammendments.

JM

So freedom to marry is a self-evident right for straight people but not for gays and lesbians. And this is based on centuries of precedents in law and customs.

But doesn't this reasoning have to deny the fact that gays and lesbians are human? If we believe that self-evident rights are universal, for all humans?

When people declare that rights belong to only certain groups of people but not to others, you tread on dangerous ground.

[Drake Tungsten]

You are so stupid.

[MrFun]

One other thought, JM.

Even given that self-evident rights are NOT universal, and only apply to some groups of people but not others, how did anti-miscegenation laws deny blacks the freedom to marry? Blacks could still exercise the self-evident right for straight people to marry under the anti-miscegenation laws.

[Kuciwalker]

So freedom to marry is a self-evident right for straight people but not for gays and lesbians. And this is based on centuries of precedents in law and customs.

But doesn't this reasoning have to deny the fact that gays and lesbians are human? If we believe that self-evident rights are universal, for all humans?

When people declare that rights belong to only certain groups of people but not to others, you tread on dangerous ground.

No. It is not self-evident that the term marriage can even logically apply to a same-sex couple.

[Ramo]

Self-evidence is a red herring; there's no such thing. So is legal justification; plenty can be found (see the 14th Amendment) if you're looking.

Broadly speaking, rights are defined by societal consensus. There isn't a consensus behind gay marriage, nationally, right now. But we're clearly moving there. Sometimes, courts lead a consensus - establishing new rights. And that frequently has positive ends (i.e. Brown). It would be very hard to make the case, based on the polling data we have, that judicial leadership has been a setback for gay marriage. As long as we're talking about limited jurisdictions that are ahead of the country at large on this issue, no harm is done.

[a.kitman]

You can't argue in support of something because it is a right when such a right is a new right, not held generally in the past/etc

Exactly so. Mr. Fun seems to believe that rights are something that is created by society.

They can be

ben/asher jm

[Ben Kenobi]

So freedom to marry is a self-evident right for straight people but not for gays and lesbians.

Everyone has exactly the same right, gay or straight. There is no discrimination.

But doesn't this reasoning have to deny the fact that gays and lesbians are human?

Hardly, because as it's been said many times, they have exactly the same access to marry as everyone else. They may not like what the right gives them, but that does not mean marriage discriminates against them.

When people declare that rights belong to only certain groups of people but not to others, you tread on dangerous ground.

You would have a case if a gay person was turned away from the alter for marrying a woman, or a lesbian a man, but the law doesn't care if you are gay or lesbian. All it cares about is whether you are a man and your wife is a woman, or whether you are a woman and your husband is a man. That's it. A straight man is not permitted to marry another man, and a straight woman is not permitted to marry another woman. Sexual preference is irrelevant in terms of the law.