If you want to see what passes for political thought in Massachusetts, head on over to Universal Hub, the self-appointed watchdog of Boston bloggers who regularly provides liberal snarky commentary on what conservative bloggers, including me, have to say. What’s interesting is the summary of pro-gay bloggers who are upset that the Massachusetts Legislature simply did its constitutional duty.
The common refrain you hear from them is that “You can’t put civil rights to a vote” or that the voters do not “have a right to strip existing civil rights from others, in this case homosexuals.”
This is a straw man. Simply asserting you have a right to do something, even if a court agrees with you, does not make it a right. Where do rights come from? Civil rights are inalienable and they come from God, at least that’s what our founding documents say. Where in all of the history of man and religion has any Western civilization, since that is indeed the basis of our laws and understanding of human rights, has any government or church ever said that marriage is anything other than the union of man and woman?
Let’s assume for a moment that contrary to reason, civil rights can simply be invented out of thin air. Then who has the authority to declare such a thing to be really a right? If some perverts declare that it is their civil right to have sex with children and they get a five out of nine judges to agree with them, then are the rest of us forced to simply agree with that decision?
Civil rights were put to a vote before
Technorati Tags:civil rights, constitution, marriage, Massachusetts, politics, same-sex marriage
One problem with the Ma. Supreme Court is its duplicity.It legalized Gay “marriage” by steamrolling over the Legislative and Executive branches of government.
Then it ruled the Legislature had a duty to vote on the referendum issue but claimed they were helpless to force a vote in the Legislature or see to it the issue got on the ballot.
It seems the Supreme Court only has dictatorial powers when it wishes to exercise such.
As a woman I’ve always taken the right to vote for granted I guess, but I’ve been reflecting on that for the past week. Women were NOT trying to redefine themselves as men, we just wanted to vote and we made rational arguments on why as individuals we should have the right to vote. It were the so-called feminists from 40 years ago, who hates themselves as women so much that they attempted to neuter themselves.
As reviewing some of the arguments to perserve the definition of marriage, I read a quote from Jesse Jackson. Jessie Jackson explains, “Gays were never called three-fifths of a person in the Constitution…and they did not require the Voting Rights Act to have the right to vote.” Imagine if the courts conclusion was that by law, everyone had to be called white to be equal so everyone by law was white. Sounds silly, but isn’t that what occured here?
I feel rather charitable and liberal, just as Vote On Marriage who understands some relationships, many of which aren’t even sexual in nature should recieve acknowledgement for their personal investment through the Benefits Fairness Act.
We need a society in which men and women fully understand the sacrifice that is made in marriage, not just Catholics. A society that supports them when their sole job is to care and provide each other, for their children, and even dealing with pergnancy lost. Whether it be emotional, financial, or compete devoted on demand care for the family.
Since chidlren for the great majority are created the old fashion way through sex, and not selected eugenics through egg and sperm donoation, children need their moms and their dads. A marriage created prior to any sexual activity keeps them whole. How can we value the relationship I have with my husband when BY LAW there is no word in our society (Massachusetts) to describe it’s unique properties?
Obtaining a licensce is a privilege, not a civil right. We don’t allow 15 year olds to obtain drivers licenses because it is in the best interest of society to keep people who are too young out of the driver’s seat.
The truly insulting thing about this is how easy the Court and the Legislature (and the Governors, both Romney and Patrick) have been willing to ignore constitutional law to accomplish this.
If gays are so motivated to get this privilege, then they should begin to play by the rules and get their own amendment in the works and stop looking for end-runs around the Constitution via the courts and the legislature.
Lastly, women’s right to vote, a real civil right, i.e. not a privilege, was also voted on.
“Can’t vote on civil rights” is much like the popular aphorism “you cannot legislate morality”. Both are 100% wrong – all votes of the legislature are votes on some sort of civil rights and all laws are political expressions of morality.
The fact that these sort of Orwellian phrases are used by people is proof that many of us are very, very stupid. In fact I would be in favor of denying the right to vote to anyone who believes that “you can’t vote on civil rights”….
One of the bits of sloppy thinking related to this issue is the confusion of “civil rights” and “human rights”. The right to life, for example, or freedom from slavery is a human right that inheres in one’s status as a human being. Any limitation or abrogation of that right is illegitimate, save in the most extreme circumstances (e.g. just wars, capital punishment, etc.)
Civil rights, on the other hand, such as the right to vote (which has been extended to a growing number of persons over the years) are given by civil authority. Such rights are extended according to a constitutional process and can be taken away or modified only by a complex political process (and, in practice, only when a substantial majority of the citizenry deem it desirable and prudent to do so).
There is no more of a human right to “marry” someone of the same sex as there is to “marry” one’s camel, although a human right to free association should be presumed.
That confusion, here in Canada anyway, has led to courts upholding the “right” of convicted and imprisoned felons to vote and lies behind efforts in the US to allow voting rights to “undocumented aliens”.
Actually marriage, properly understood, IS a human right, one ordained by God from the beginning and prior to political society. It’s not a privilege granted by the state, like a driver’s license. Though obviously like other human rights, even life itself, marriage requires the acknowledgement and aid of political society to flourish in a secure way.
Aside 1: This doesn’t mean I buy the homosex party-line. There is a right to marry, according to the definition of marriage. Which is a man and a woman.
Aside 2: I’m also pretty sure that the Church “bars” some people under canon law from marrying, and that civil law sometimes does and sometimes doesn’t follow these bars. I’m thinking of matters like impotence and ordination (generally not followed by the state), and sanity/competence (generally followed by the state). Exception … meet rule.
Thanks, Roseberry. That’s just what I was gonna say: technically civil rights *are* alienable, whereas human rights are not.
One thing liberals have been doing for decades is turning every requested civil right into a “human” right (Catholics lend to this by over-extension of “dignity of human life” and the so-called “seamless garment” of Cardinal Bernardin).
For example, access to health care is a human right. Having the state pay for health care is a civil right.
The freedom to marry and live together in marriage is a basic human right. That is one of the main reasons the Church has always opposed slavery. Any government that, for example, took all children away from their parents to be raised in institutions or which banned monogamy would be in violation of that human right. Human rights merely demand that the State allow people the freedom to live as families.
Civil recognition of marriage means that the state not only permits marriage but offers certain “civil rights” to those who are married. Advocates of “same sex marriage” are ostensibly fighting for those civil rights that are granted to people who are married.
Dear Dom, et al.,
I must say that we vote on civil rights. The XIV, XV, XIX, and XXVI Amendments were created in light of Article V of the Constitution.