Invented Constitutional "Rights"

[Timpman]

PeterVenkman wrote:

A few years ago the Proposition 8 campaign was happening and there was a very robust debate about gay marriage on this forum. I had a big part in those discussions and posted some arguments that I think are still relevant today. Specifically, I made arguments about:

1. the right to marriage under equal protection and due process (constitutional guarantees)

2. marriage as a form of expression protected by the first amendment

3. the need for a secular (non-religious) justification for denying marriage equality to gays and lesbians (which doesn't exist)

4. the social implications of heteronormativity

http://www.lds.net/forums/general-discussion/46026-youtube-my-faith-reduced-rubble-8.html

I am not a Constitutional scholar, but I understand it some. I don't know what arguments PeterVenkman made, but here's what I think:

1. Any "right to marriage under equal protection and due process" is make believe. What protections are people not getting by being unmarried? Same with due process.

2. How is marriage a form of expression? I think it's ludicrous to think the authors of the Bill of Rights intended such applications. Does anyone here also believe porn is protected speech?

3. Why must there be a purely secular justification? I reject that notion. Laws are fundamentally based on morals.

4. No thoughts on that.

Edited April 19, 2012 by Timpman

[MarginOfError]

PeterVenkman wrote:

I am not a Constitutional scholar, but I understand it some. I don't know what arguments PeterVenkman made, but here's what I think:

1. Any "right to marriage under equal protection and due process" is make believe. What protections are people not getting by being unmarried? Same with due process.

I'm also not sure that I believe there is a constitutional right. But I don't think there's much legal argument to continue the legal restriction against same sex marriage.

2. How is marriage a form of expression? I think it's ludicrous to think the authors of the Bill of Rights intended such applications. Does anyone here also believe porn is protected speech?

Pornography is protected speech.

3. Why must there be a purely secular justification? I reject that notion. Laws are fundamentally based on morals.

But what do you do when there is rampant disagreement in a society about what is moral?

4. No thoughts on that.

I have no thoughts on your lack of thoughts

[Dravin]

Does anyone here also believe porn is protected speech?

The Supreme Court does, furthermore they've decided that child pornography is protected as long as no children are involved: Supreme Court strikes down ban on 'virtual child porn' - CNN

Here is fundamentally the issue with these types of conversations (X right exists, no it doesn't, yes it does, no it doesn't...). The courts decide constitutional protections and limitations, not random people on the internet. You may believe with all your heart that something shouldn't be protected, or that a limitation exists, but it boils down to what the courts say (in particular the US Supreme Court) to decide what actually is protected (as opposed to what should) and what limitations exist. Decisions beat speculation. And that works for both sides.

Edited April 19, 2012 by Dravin

[Vort]

The Supreme Court does, furthermore they've decided that child pornography is protected as long as no children are involved: Supreme Court strikes down ban on 'virtual child porn' - CNN

Here is fundamentally the issue with these types of conversations (X right exists, no it doesn't, yes it does, no it doesn't...). The courts decide constitutional protections and limitations, not random people on the internet. You may believe with all your heart that something shouldn't be protected, or that a limitation exists, but it boils down to what the courts say (in particular the US Supreme Court) to decide what actually is protected and what limitations exist. Decisions beat speculation. And that works for both sides.

Functionally, you are correct. Philosophically, thought, this is not how things are. Rights derive from the Creator and are an inherent birthright in all human beings, no matter who they are or where they live. The philosophical difference between us and the Chinese is not that we have rights they lack; rather, it is that our government recognizes and actively protects our inherent rights.

[Dravin]

Functionally, you are correct. Philosophically, thought, this is not how things are. Rights derive from the Creator and are an inherent birthright in all human beings, no matter who they are or where they live. The philosophical difference between us and the Chinese is not that we have rights they lack; rather, it is that our government recognizes and actively protects our inherent rights.

Okay, then referring to the US Constitution (or state constitutions when applicable) isn't relevant. By such a philosophy one has (or lacks) a right to a free Slurpee per day regardless of what any document or society may say. If someone argues X right doesn't exist an appeal to, "Nope, it says right here..." isn't relevant because what rights exist are not defined by what is written in the document or approved by society.

I suspect you'll bring up D&C 101 (since this is primarily a board occupied by LDS), but what it says is the Lord suffered the Constitution to be created for a purpose, it does not claim it a complete and perfect document that delineates every right he has endowed men with, and everything not in it is by extension a right no man possesses. We can consider the case of women's national suffrage, it wasn't in the US Constitution when it was created, nor was it when the scripture was given. So we must either conclude women do not actually have a right to vote*, or we must accept that the US Constitution was not created complete (or that there exists rights within it that are not explicitly stated and that need to be interpreted as existing) and the possibility that more rights exist than are clearly delineated within the document. This makes the argument, under this philosophy, that "It doesn't say in the Constitution there is a right for homosexuals to marry" moot.

*Well, more accurately a right not to have their right to vote denied them by virtue of their sex.

Edit: It should be noted I'm not saying your philosophy is incorrect. I'm talking about the interplay between the philosophy you expressed and the argument, "The Constitution says/does not say..."

Edited April 19, 2012 by Dravin

[MarginOfError]

Okay, then referring to the US Constitution isn't relevant. By such a philosophy one has (or lacks) a right to a free Slurpee per day regardless of what any document or society may say.

And on that platform, I nominate Dravin for Supreme Ruler of Everything.

[Klein_Helmer]

PeterVenkman wrote:

I am not a Constitutional scholar, but I understand it some. I don't know what arguments PeterVenkman made, but here's what I think:

1. Any "right to marriage under equal protection and due process" is make believe. What protections are people not getting by being unmarried? Same with due process.

2. How is marriage a form of expression? I think it's ludicrous to think the authors of the Bill of Rights intended such applications. Does anyone here also believe porn is protected speech?

3. Why must there be a purely secular justification? I reject that notion. Laws are fundamentally based on morals.

4. No thoughts on that.

1. In that case, you should read and evaluate them before responding - which you should do in the already active and information rich thread.

2. Does anyone here not believe porn is protected speech?

[beefche]

And on that platform, I nominate Dravin for Supreme Ruler of Everything.

There'll be no living with him, now.

[Timpman]

1. In that case, you should read and evaluate them before responding - which you should do in the already active and information rich thread.

Didn't he say those arguments were made in 2008? Let's have a fresh discussion instead of looking up old threads. Forums would be quite dead if we couldn't discuss anything that had been discussed previously.

2. Does anyone here not believe porn is protected speech?

Me. I can disagree with the supreme court.

[Vort]

2. Does anyone here not believe porn is protected speech?

I do not believe pornography is an inherent right as a part of free speech. The Supreme Court disagrees with me, and their view is the relevant one. But yes, I am one that thinks pornography is not a God-given right.

[Timpman]

But I don't think there's much legal argument to continue the legal restriction against same sex marriage.

So, is it necessary to have a purely secular argument to continue the restriction?

[Klein_Helmer]

Didn't he say those arguments were made in 2008? Let's have a fresh discussion instead of looking up old threads. Forums would be quite dead if we couldn't discuss anything that had been discussed previously.

The thread from yesterday seems fresh enough, and there is already a wealth of informative posts in there. Creating a new one will only dilute the conversation.

Me. I can disagree with the supreme court.

Haha, OK.

What is pornography, where is the line? Who is to make such a determination? Which forms of pornographic media should be banned? Film alone, the written word?

Have you read Shakespeare? Some of that is straight lewd, shall we ban his works?

Edited April 19, 2012 by Klein_Helmer

[Klein_Helmer]

I do not believe pornography is an inherent right as a part of free speech. The Supreme Court disagrees with me, and their view is the relevant one. But yes, I am one that thinks pornography is not a God-given right.

If you had your way, how would this be legislated?

Please see my earlier inquiry to the thread starter.

[Connie]

But what do you do when there is rampant disagreement in a society about what is moral?

The only thing one can do. Follow the example of Alma.

Alma 4:19

And this he did that he himself might go forth among his people, or among the people of Nephi, that he might preach the word of God unto them, to stir them up in remembrance of their duty, and that he might pull down, by the word of God, all the pride and craftiness and all the contentions which were among his people, seeing no way that he might reclaim them save it were in bearing down in pure testimony against them.

Alma 31:5

And now, as the preaching of the word had a great tendency to lead the people to do that which was just—yea, it had had more powerful effect upon the minds of the people than the sword, or anything else, which had happened unto them—therefore Alma thought it was expedient that they should try the virtue of the word of God.

[MarginOfError]

So, is it necessary to have a purely secular argument to continue the restriction?

Not necessarily. If the overwhelming majority of citizens in a pluralistic society can agree that a certain behavior ought to be outlawed, then I think that constitutes a fair argument for the restriction.

For example

murder

driver's licences

medical practitioner's licenses, etc.

[Timpman]

I think the prophets trumps the Supreme Court. Society just doesn't know it it yet :)

The flood of pornographic filth, the inordinate emphasis on sex and violence are not peculiar to North America. The situation is as bad in Europe and in many other areas. The whole dismal picture indicates a weakening rot seeping into the very fiber of society.

Legal restraints against deviant moral behavior are eroding under legislative enactments and court opinions. This is done in the name of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of choice in so-called personal matters. But the bitter fruit of these so-called freedoms has been enslavement to debauching habits and behavior that leads only to destruction. A prophet, speaking long ago, aptly described the process when he said, “And thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell” (2 Ne. 28:21). (Gordon B. Hinckley, “In Opposition to Evil,” Ensign, Sept. 2004, 3 )

These "so-called freedoms" are NOT rights. So what do we do when the SCOTUS is dead wrong?

[MarginOfError]

The only thing one can do. Follow the example of Alma.

Alma 4:19

And this he did that he himself might go forth among his people, or among the people of Nephi, that he might preach the word of God unto them, to stir them up in remembrance of their duty, and that he might pull down, by the word of God, all the pride and craftiness and all the contentions which were among his people, seeing no way that he might reclaim them save it were in bearing down in pure testimony against them.

Alma 31:5

And now, as the preaching of the word had a great tendency to lead the people to do that which was just—yea, it had had more powerful effect upon the minds of the people than the sword, or anything else, which had happened unto them—therefore Alma thought it was expedient that they should try the virtue of the word of God.

This I very much agree with. I would much prefer to eliminate behaviors I believe are morally wrong by teaching people the gospel and persuading them to change their behavior, as opposed to writing laws.

[MarginOfError]

I think the prophets trumps the Supreme Court. Society just doesn't know it it yet :)

These "so-called freedoms" are NOT rights. So what do we do when the SCOTUS is dead wrong?

See here.

[Timpman]

The thread from yesterday seems fresh enough, and there is already a wealth of informative posts in there. Creating a new one will only dilute the conversation.

PeterVenkman's detailed arguments are not there. This thread is supposed to be focused on Constitutional "Rights" rather than "Youtube and my faith reduced to rubble".

[Timpman]

What is pornography, where is the line? Who is to make such a determination? Which forms of pornographic media should be banned? Film alone, the written word?

Have you read Shakespeare? Some of that is straight lewd, shall we ban his works?

Very good questions, actually. I will think about it.

Thanks for pointing out that post, MarginOfError. I tend to think radically sometimes. I would like to throw a porn tea party.

[MarginOfError]

Very good questions, actually. I will think about it.

Thanks for pointing out that post, MarginOfError. I tend to think radically sometimes. I would like to throw a porn tea party.

Depending on what you're looking for, you may only need to schedule tea with CaptainCurmudgeon

[FunkyTown]

Plus, I don't think that gathering up a whole bunch of porn and Mormons in one place and tossing the porn overboard will make quite the statement you intend.

I can imagine the jokes right now and, as funny as they are, I don't think it would forward your cause.

[Dravin]

Plus, I don't think that gathering up a whole bunch of porn and Mormons in one place and tossing the porn overboard will make quite the statement you intend.

I can imagine the jokes right now and, as funny as they are, I don't think it would forward your cause.

Besides, think of the school children down shore, "Look what I found making my sandcastle Mommy!"

[Timpman]

Besides, think of the school children down shore, "Look what I found making my sandcastle Mommy!"

After water comes fire.

[Klein_Helmer]

Very good questions, actually. I will think about it.

Looking forward to it.

I have a feeling my point will become fairly obvious.