5 ms·

Bullshit. Any opinion is okay but if you are actively working to remove existing rights from other people, you can expect opprobrium. This applies especially wh

Bullshit. Any opinion is okay but if you are actively working to remove existing rights from other people, you can expect opprobrium. This applies especially when leading an organization with values like Mozilla's.

hackinthebochs 13y ago
>but if you are actively working to remove existing rights from other people How is opposing redefining marriage (in the context of law) working to remove existing rights of people? Its framed in terms of removing rights/civil rights because it suits the cause. But this characterization is not supported by a dispassionate reading of the issue here.
- clavalle 13y ago
  Rights are not granted. Laws merely define approach to Rights.
  - hackinthebochs 13y ago
    I don't believe in natural rights. I believe all rights worth writing down are granted.
    - clavalle 13y ago
      That suggests some authority is granting your Rights. What authority would that be?
      - hackinthebochs 13y ago
        The collective might of society. The only natural right is "might makes right". Every "Right" we grant ourselves after that is simply a particular implementation of that initial principle. The key is to make sure your group of like minded folks have might on their side. A right necessarily entails a responsibility onto others. Without some framework of mutual agreement and enforcement, talk of rights is utterly impotent.
        clavalle 13y ago
        That flies in the face of the idea of a Democratic Republic where minorities Rights are protected from the whim of the majority. If the majority can simply redefine a Right, what is the point of elevating these things to the status of a Right?
        hackinthebochs 13y ago
        Within the framework of a society, whatever rules have been defined are law. Structuring society in such a way that minority rights are protected is a part of this. One doesn't have to reference some overarching 'natural rights' to have them protected: you simply write them down as one of the founding principles of your society. This is what the declaration of independence/bill of rights has done and its worked out pretty well so far. A right is always a reference to a constraint in behavior, agreed upon through some mutual framework, and enforced through the might instilled to that framework. But make no mistake, any of these "rights" will always be at the whim of the majority. The question simply becomes how big of a majority is required, and how well can your institutions withstand a serious attack on the minority by a (less than supermajority) majority. Speaking of "self-evident truths" will not save you in the face of such an assault. We must always be vigilant that the structure of our institutions are sound.
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
        clavalle 13y ago
        I don't know. Law without principle seems hollow to me.
- TheCoelacanth 13y ago
  Gay marriage was legal in California until Prop 8, so Prop 8 removed some people's right to marry.
- wpietri 13y ago
  Untrue. If you read Judge Walker's decision against Prop 8, or the recent judgment against the Michigan Marriage Amendment, you'll see that both Prop 8 and the MMA failed because they violate the 14th Amendment's grant of equal protection: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause In particular, both Prop 8 and the MMA failed to meet the Rational Basis test: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review That is, both courts found that there was no rational basis for keeping gay people from getting married. The rationales offered by proponents didn't measure up.
  - hackinthebochs 13y ago
    I voted for gay marriage in the last election in my state, but honestly that rationale seems extremely strained. Yes, government has a legitimate interest in defining marriage as it confers certain benefits to certain people. The "rational basis" test should not be one that questions the validity of the exclusions/inclusions within the law, but rather if the government has a legitimate interest in law in question. It should not have been the burden of the proponents to prove that the government had a rational basis for excluding gays from marriage.
    - wpietri 13y ago
      If you think that's the case, then work to appeal the 14th amendment, which grants all people, including gay and lesbian ones, equal protection before the law. Seriously, go and read the decision on Prop 8, or the recent one on the Michigan Marriage Amendment. Both are clear and readable explanations of why gay people start out equal, and if you want to make laws against them, you have to prove that there's a rational basis for the state to do so.
      - hackinthebochs 13y ago
        >Both are clear and readable explanations of why gay people start out equal Not being able to marry a same sex person is not "not equal" (pardon all the negatives). The fact that we have to rely on judges to offer strained arguments to cause any meaningful cultural shift is a bug in our system, not a feature. Judges should not be seen as the savior of the republic. The proper place for this to change is through legislation. All of this is assuming the definition of marriage being between a man and a woman was ever codified into law before this became a point of contention--not sure if I've ever actually seen such a thing.
_t5yy 13y ago
"Removing existing rights"? two years before that, this "right" never existed. For a right to be enshrined it has to survive, a majority of californians voted to approve prop 8...

hackinthebochs 13y ago

>but if you are actively working to remove existing rights from other people How is opposing redefining marriage (in the context of law) working to remove existing rights of people? Its framed in terms of removing rights/civil rights because it suits the cause. But this characterization is not supported by a dispassionate reading of the issue here.

clavalle 13y ago
Rights are not granted. Laws merely define approach to Rights.
- hackinthebochs 13y ago
  I don't believe in natural rights. I believe all rights worth writing down are granted.
  - clavalle 13y ago
    That suggests some authority is granting your Rights. What authority would that be?
    - hackinthebochs 13y ago
      The collective might of society. The only natural right is "might makes right". Every "Right" we grant ourselves after that is simply a particular implementation of that initial principle. The key is to make sure your group of like minded folks have might on their side. A right necessarily entails a responsibility onto others. Without some framework of mutual agreement and enforcement, talk of rights is utterly impotent.
      - clavalle 13y ago
        That flies in the face of the idea of a Democratic Republic where minorities Rights are protected from the whim of the majority. If the majority can simply redefine a Right, what is the point of elevating these things to the status of a Right?
        hackinthebochs 13y ago
        Within the framework of a society, whatever rules have been defined are law. Structuring society in such a way that minority rights are protected is a part of this. One doesn't have to reference some overarching 'natural rights' to have them protected: you simply write them down as one of the founding principles of your society. This is what the declaration of independence/bill of rights has done and its worked out pretty well so far. A right is always a reference to a constraint in behavior, agreed upon through some mutual framework, and enforced through the might instilled to that framework. But make no mistake, any of these "rights" will always be at the whim of the majority. The question simply becomes how big of a majority is required, and how well can your institutions withstand a serious attack on the minority by a (less than supermajority) majority. Speaking of "self-evident truths" will not save you in the face of such an assault. We must always be vigilant that the structure of our institutions are sound.
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
        clavalle 13y ago
        I don't know. Law without principle seems hollow to me.
TheCoelacanth 13y ago
Gay marriage was legal in California until Prop 8, so Prop 8 removed some people's right to marry.
wpietri 13y ago
Untrue. If you read Judge Walker's decision against Prop 8, or the recent judgment against the Michigan Marriage Amendment, you'll see that both Prop 8 and the MMA failed because they violate the 14th Amendment's grant of equal protection: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause In particular, both Prop 8 and the MMA failed to meet the Rational Basis test: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review That is, both courts found that there was no rational basis for keeping gay people from getting married. The rationales offered by proponents didn't measure up.
- hackinthebochs 13y ago
  I voted for gay marriage in the last election in my state, but honestly that rationale seems extremely strained. Yes, government has a legitimate interest in defining marriage as it confers certain benefits to certain people. The "rational basis" test should not be one that questions the validity of the exclusions/inclusions within the law, but rather if the government has a legitimate interest in law in question. It should not have been the burden of the proponents to prove that the government had a rational basis for excluding gays from marriage.
  - wpietri 13y ago
    If you think that's the case, then work to appeal the 14th amendment, which grants all people, including gay and lesbian ones, equal protection before the law. Seriously, go and read the decision on Prop 8, or the recent one on the Michigan Marriage Amendment. Both are clear and readable explanations of why gay people start out equal, and if you want to make laws against them, you have to prove that there's a rational basis for the state to do so.
    - hackinthebochs 13y ago
      >Both are clear and readable explanations of why gay people start out equal Not being able to marry a same sex person is not "not equal" (pardon all the negatives). The fact that we have to rely on judges to offer strained arguments to cause any meaningful cultural shift is a bug in our system, not a feature. Judges should not be seen as the savior of the republic. The proper place for this to change is through legislation. All of this is assuming the definition of marriage being between a man and a woman was ever codified into law before this became a point of contention--not sure if I've ever actually seen such a thing.

_t5yy 13y ago

"Removing existing rights"? two years before that, this "right" never existed. For a right to be enshrined it has to survive, a majority of californians voted to approve prop 8...