Unalienable Rights Under Fire »
Posted By Spadecaller 7 months, 2 weeks ago in Political News
John Aravosis presents a personal message regarding the inalienable and fundamental rights of marriage for same-sex couples. Compromise of inalienable rights renders the constitution of the United States powerless over protecting individual rights from the tyranny of majority rule.
Read Full Story at youtube.com »
980 Views Share Story 74 Comments Report
Submitted By:
Spadecaller
Welcome to my profile. About me: I'm an artist of several kinds; from bull to painting. I don't spare too many words. Most ...
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 74 (view all)
-
-
20%
Endoscopy7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is not a restricting of rights. The Homosexual groups have tried to turn the issue into that. The real issue is what is the definition of marriage. For THOUSANDS of years the definition has been a man and a woman coming together to have children and raise them. This even held sway in the Ancient Greece where homosexual behavior was looked on as normal. Still the ancient Greeks held Marriage as a sacred institution between a man and a woman to raise their children. The best for a child is to have both a man and a woman raising them.
Reply
In this country homosexuals are less that 3% of the population. A small minority of them desire this. So for the sake of this small splinter group of people you want to trash thousands of years of what a marriage is. That is very sick.
-
-
100%
Spadecaller7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Democracy requires that the minority have equal rights under the constitution; rights that ought never become subjugated by majority rule. As conceived in our constitution, the minority's rights must be protected no matter how singular or alienated that minority is from the majority; otherwise, the majority's rights lose their meaning.
Reply
In the United States, basic individual liberties are protected through the Bill of Rights, which were drafted by James Madison and adopted in the form of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. These enumerate the rights that may not be violated by the government, safeguarding—in theory, at least—the rights of any minority against majority tyranny. Today, these rights are considered the essential element of democracy. Unalienable rights cannot be granted by or be withdrawn from the individual; they remain inherent to the fundamental authority of each individual.
"If it be admitted that a man possessing absolute power may misuse that power by wronging his adversaries, why should not a majority be liable to the same reproach? Men do not change their characters by uniting with one another; nor does their patience in the presence of obstacles increase with their strength. For my own part, I cannot believe it; the power to do everything, which I should refuse to one of my equals, I will never grant to any number of them."
Alexis de Tocqueville, "Tyranny of the Majority," Chapter XV, Book 1, Democracy in America -
100%
Spadecaller7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Who is John Aravosis?
Reply
"John Aravosis is a Washington DC-based writer and political consultant, specializing in using the Internet for politics. He is the editor of AMERICAblog.com, one of America's top progressive political blogs, with over 300,000 unique visitors per month. John has a joint law degree and masters in foreign service from Georgetown, and his writing experience includes working as a stringer for the Economist magazine and RADAR. Washingtonian magazine’s annual “50 Best Journalists” issue named John one of “journalism's rising stars, those likely to have a major impact in coming years.” John has also been honored as one of the “Out 100,” and as one of the fifty “most powerful gay men and women in America.” John’s policy experience includes stints in the US Senate, the World Bank, and the Children's Defense Fund. John is also an occasional TV pundit, and has appeared on The O'Reilly Factor, Hardball with Chris Matthews, ABC News, Nightline, CNN and more. John speaks five languages and has visited or worked in 28 countries, including giving lectures about the Internet and politics (in English, French, Spanish, and Italian) in France, Spain, Italy, Greece, Morocco, Indonesia and Cote d'Ivoire." -
-
sithburnsComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
100%
hamy7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think the most important thing for people to ask themselves is "why." Why does it make them feel good to strip the rights of others away? Why are they afraid of allowing two people the right to be together legally? Why do they get so angry at the thought of a relationship between two people of the same sex having the same validation that they do? What harm can one relationship actually do to another? And most importantly, why aren't they working to save straight marriages, if they truly are concerned about protecting marriage and families, instead of keeping people from marrying?
Reply
So if you voted for Prop 8 or are one of the people who protested in Iowa or Vermont, ask yourself what you REALLY did to try and protect marriage in this world. I don't think you'll like the answer. -
-
-
17%
Endoscopy7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There you go redefining what a right is. Thousands of years of history and the laws created in this country because of the Mormons means nothing to you does it. History is insignificant since it does not agree with your vaunted ideas of what is just. Do you remember your civics lessons in grade school? The family is the basic building block of society. This is just one more attack on that institution.
Reply
-
-
prophyporcritesComment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned5 Replies
-
-
100%
Spadecaller7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The American founders considered rule by majority a troubling conundrum. In theory, majority rule was necessary for expressing the popular will and the basis for establishing the republic. The alternative—consensus or rule by everyone's agreement—cannot be imposed upon a free people. And minority rule is antithetical to democracy. Nevertheless, the founders worried that the majority could abuse its powers to oppress a minority just as easily as a king. Jefferson and Madison both warned us in their letters about the dangers of legislative and executive tyranny. Madison, alluding to slavery, added: "It is of great importance in a republic, not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part."
Reply
Considering slavery, women suffrage, property owners rights, and gay rights, our nation has struggled with this concept until this very day. -
-
eezzbeatComment removed: Hard Banned
-
100%
berkeley7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
how about, get government out of the marriage business?
Reply
http://www.propeller.com/story/2009/04/12/get-gove... -
20%
opelske7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree berkeley. Government should not be in the business of what was or should remain local issues and voted on by the community where one chooses to live. Keep it local. There is not one pill for all. What's next? Polygamy rights? *********** rights?
Reply-
-
100%
Tangent0017 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"What's next? Polygamy rights? *********** rights?"
Reply
That sort of argument is a red herring. In countries that have gay marriage, there has been no such slippery slope.
Eventually, the issue of same-sex marriage will have to be addressed by the federal government. While states can choose their own laws to a degree, marriage has generally always been 'transportable' (i.e. if a couple is married in one state, all other states are required to recognize that marriage as valid).
-
-
100%
Spadecaller7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ellen Responds To Palin's Gay Marriage Stance
Reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsawEXt7e4U -
29%
KISA452a7 months, 2 weeks ago
-
75%
Spadecaller7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
KISA
Reply
You first would need to go back to school and study a bit more before you would be ready for those instructions.
Nontheless, the answer is clearly defined throughout the course of history.
<<By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.>> People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123).
These rights are inherent and transcend the written law; they pertain to race, creed, religious preference, sexual preference, and the equal right of any individual's pursuit of happiness (as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others or causes injury to others).
-
-
100%
Spadecaller7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
KISA:
Reply
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court.
"Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home. And there are other spheres of our lives and existence, outside the home, where the State should not be a dominant presence. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct. The instant case involves liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions.
"We conclude the case should be resolved by determining whether the petitioners were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. For this inquiry we deem it necessary to reconsider the Court’s holding in Bowers."
The Supreme Court has defined the "autonomy of self" (unalienable right) and made specific reference of the individual's unalienable rights to include sex, fyi. There is no legal justification for discrimination of gays or straight sex or marriage.-
0%
KISA452a7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is an after the fact argument. Due Process has to do with restricting states from violating the US Constitution.
Reply
Without specifying the case, this is relatively uninformative... Or are you making the argument that ALL sexual acts are protected? Without a definition of the question involved in this case, you have only supplied an argument for the universality of sexual acts protection... -
100%
dgoodii7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What you are really asking for is the abolishment of all programs and services requiring marriage under federal law to be received. A noble cause, since they should not exist anyway.
Reply
So we get rid of joint returns and all other brackets that require some status to be granted, therefore every group or person pays the same. Get rid of all Federal programs that take taxes from one group and give to another group, excluding those who can not care for themselves. Since marriage is not a Federal matter, they have just used it to divide us into groups.
The Federal Governments discrimination of groups is the issue here, single, married, widow, dependent.
-
-
100%
Spadecaller7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"This is an after the fact argument."
Reply
Usually all Supreme Court decisions are "after the fact" LOL!
The Supreme Court interprets the law that was established two centuries ago. Unalienable rights are defined as rights that existed even before the Constitution as they are inherent to the nature of the individual.
Yes, this is an argument after the fact of those who abuse individual rights; I am referring to people like you who think you have the right to deny gays and others of their equal and unalienable rights. -
0%
KISA452a7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
After the fact. In other words, your argument requires preventing gay marriage being against the federal constitution and you have not proven that fact. So, you skipped proving the illegality at one level, but want to apply it to the states.
Reply
Unalienable means nothing... Everyone who wants something claims unalienable rights. Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Someone's happiness involves torturing and killing others. Your argument would "prove" that they have the unalienable right to do so.
"You don't have the right to do something that harms another". Well, that argument removes unalienable rights in favor of the other person proving that unalienable rights can be taken away when "you" think it is OK. Thereby proving that not giving the right to marry anyone of your choice is logical and legal.-
100%
aceofspades17 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
OK Kisa -- after all the unalienable - inalienable- constitutional B.S. is done with why don't you just come out of the closet & say you're against same-sex marriage?
Reply
Why? religion? moral? or are you really a homophobe?
C'mon I'm sure you can give a straight - no pun intended - answer without the debating team rhetoric
-
-
100%
Spadecaller7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Reply
What makes KISA believe that gays are not created equal and deserving of the same right in their pursuit of happiness?
The answer is: (1) homophobia
(2) ignorance of the constitution. -
More News
Politics Daily
Obama Faces Pushback From His Own Party on More Troops for Afghanistan
Police Spying On Protesters Stirs Outrage in Britain
Melinda Henneberger on 'Hardball': Obama's Afghanistan Announcement
Woman UP Video: Thanks, Mr. President! (Or Not)
Hate Crimes Spike: Religion, Race, Sexual Orientation Are Main Targets
Submit a Story
Advertisement
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.