The Supreme Court gay ruling

[RV Pundit]

Indeed. I think Clarence and DB are confused by what it really mean to say a right is inherent, inviolable and inalienable. For me it means basic rights that you don't need to seek permission to exercise. The right to life, the freedom to speech, right to associate etc.

Then you have second  and third class rights..like the right to food...right to be president..that right is not inherent. Nobody owe you food or warm bath but nobody should deny you the same. Those rights are aspirational.

Gays rights are inherent. The right to marriage is just a form of right to associate. It also inherent. People have inherent rights to do whatever they want without affecting others. Gov cannot tell people they cannot marry or partner or associate with who or not.

Gays right to marriage is therefore a foregone conclusion. Gov just need to recognize that right. For nothing stops gays now from come-we-stay marriage. Getting married will grant them protection and rights of marriage...including what happens when they divorce.

Any progressive society should not have problems with gays and them marrying.

So why are rights protected seeing they are inherent. The essence of a right is not inherency but EXERCISE of those rights. Look at a serial killer with 10'victims and pat them in the back since the victims still have a right to life regardless of what he did

[MOON Ki]

The idea is that dignity is so intertwined with human existence that even if somebody killed you or committed you to slavery, you still have it. Life is a human right even if somebody denies it by taking away life itself. It is not at all retarded to understand it that way.

Still, I'd much prefer it if people were not inclined to readily kill me or make a slave of me.   And I count on the law to discourage them.    Indeed part of my sense of human dignity comes from or is confirmed in the fact that other humans see me as a human and not some small insect that may easily and freely be locked up in a box or whose life may be easily snuffed out.

When people say "this is damaging to my sense of dignity"---and that is something only they know---the proper response is to acknowledge that.   It is the height of cheek to respond by giving them a  different "definition" of dignity according to which they are "OK".

[GeeMail]

I see the point Moonki is making but for some reason expected him to scratch deeper.

Clarence Thomas has his challenges but on this one he demonstrated deeper thinking than the majority. Legal minds on Nipate have put on lay masks and proceeded to misunderstand the import of his dissent. #Vooke and Pundit ask why human rights are protected even when they are inherent. The idea is that there are necessary interventions required of states to protect these rights. Pundit attempts to classify the rights without delving into the reasoning behind it. Take the right to life for example. You cannot lodge a petition in SCOTUS to establish this right simply because it is self-evident. If one seeks court interpretation or ruling in a case where violation has occurred, one is not asking the court to confer or grant that right - it is not in their mandate. However, the court can make a ruling to apply sanction on the state or a person violating that right (a convicted murderer for example).

This is where Pundit's classification becomes useful. The right to life and the right to marry are on different levels although both are rights and are inviolable, inalienable. A person has the right to marry whomever he/she chooses. Going to court does not confer that right because it already exists with or without the court. Justice Clarence Thomas is questioning the rationale for asking SCOTUS to make a ruling on marriage as if they have the mandate or power to grant/confer an inherent right. By the majority ruling as they did to purport to confer the right to marry persons of the same sex, the majority ruling sets the precedent that the state/court can grant the right and can withdraw it as it deems fit. The SCOTUS swallowed the bait and followed the gay pride into legal quicksand.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/06/26/of-marriage-and-liberty-thoughts-inspired-by-justice-thomas-obergefell-dissent/

[vooke]

I see the point Moonki is making but for some reason expected him to scratch deeper.

Clarence Thomas has his challenges but on this one he demonstrated deeper thinking than the majority. Legal minds on Nipate have put on lay masks and proceeded to misunderstand the import of his dissent. #Vooke and Pundit ask why human rights are protected even when they are inherent. The idea is that there are necessary interventions required of states to protect these rights. Pundit attempts to classify the rights without delving into the reasoning behind it. Take the right to life for example. You cannot lodge a petition in SCOTUS to establish this right simply because it is self-evident. If one seeks court interpretation or ruling in a case where violation has occurred, one is not asking the court to confer or grant that right - it is not in their mandate. However, the court can make a ruling to apply sanction on the state or a person violating that right (a convicted murderer for example).

This is where Pundit's classification becomes useful. The right to life and the right to marry are on different levels although both are rights and are inviolable, inalienable. A person has the right to marry whomever he/she chooses. Going to court does not confer that right because it already exists with or without the court. Justice Clarence Thomas is questioning the rationale for asking SCOTUS to make a ruling on marriage as if they have the mandate or power to grant/confer an inherent right. By the majority ruling as they did to purport to confer the right to marry persons of the same sex, the majority ruling sets the precedent that the state/court can grant the right and can withdraw it as it deems fit. The SCOTUS swallowed the bait and followed the gay pride into legal quicksand.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/06/26/of-marriage-and-liberty-thoughts-inspired-by-justice-thomas-obergefell-dissent/

You are at the deep end of confusion.
Take homosexuality and segregation. Replace one with the other and try and see if it will light some bulb in your head.

The government job is not to give you rights but to secure them. Homosexuals have successfully convinced the judges that the government is not securing their rights