How to get the public to affirm civil liberties: Ban the freedom to marry for everyone

[usregimechange]

“The framers of the Constitution knew, and we should not forget today, that there is no more effective practical guaranty against arbitrary and unreasonable government than to require that the principles of law which officials would impose upon a minority be imposed generally.” ~Justice Jackson, Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New York, 336 U.S. 106, 112—113 (1949) (concurring opinion).

If the public doesn't want gays to marry, than no one should be able to.


What would be the result of that?

Those who support discriminatory policies would have a sudden interest in civil liberty.

Those who love to recite The Pledge of Allegiance ("with liberty and justice for all") would get their opportunity to apply it.

Those who like to quote the Bible to rationalize their selective use of ancient Hebrew rule worshiping would have an opportunity to show their interest in "weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith" (Matthew 23:23).

Those who believed they were protecting the public from harm would find that, at the very least, making alliances with the forces of tyranny is hardly a way to do so.

Those reporting concern about morality, who have been content with pointing their finger at others, would realize that each time they do, three fingers are pointing back at them.

Those who have fought to extend liberty to all citizens would be vindicated in their fight against "injustice anywhere" as it truly is "a threat to justice everywhere" (Martin Luther King).

Those who support the freedom to marry for all citizens but who have not expressed themselves may find their silence has said more than they ever did.

[BlooInBloo]

1. Wait for them to die, leaving us with a younger generation who is so blase about it...

that they'll be thinking to themselves: "Dad, did people REALLY care about this back in the day"

[WeDidIt]

2. I think you should start by banning Mormon Marriage

Seriously.

Lots of people don't like Mormons and it could actually pass. It would be a great object lesson in what Prop H8 was alla bout.

[usregimechange]

3. It is more of a rhetorical question, wasn't a serious suggestion

[DangerousRhythm]

4. I like it.

:fistbump:

[usregimechange]

5. Ha, that's the first I have seen the fist bump smilies.

[DangerousRhythm]

6. I think it's fairly new.

I had to use it twice today just because it's so cute. :rofl:

[Renegade08]

7. Its technically not really a "freedom" to marry.

Just as one doesn't have a "freedom" to possess a driver's license. Call it a right to marry, but not a freedom to marry. Because even if a couple can't marry, they are still free to associate with one another.

[Lex]

8. If you have the right to marry, you have the freedom to marry.

nt

[usregimechange]

9. That is how I see it.

:fistbump:

[Renegade08]

10. So, if you have a right to a jury trial, you have the freedom to have a jury trial?

The point is, the right to marry isn't really a civil "liberty." Even if you can't marry, you still have the freedom to associate with your partner, and even have your own marriage ceremony. You just can't get the state to approve of your marriage.

The right to marry squarely raises an issue of equality, not liberty.

[Lex]

11. The freedom to choose a jury trial or not, yes.

nt

[Renegade08]

12. Right to a last meal = freedom to eat a last meal?

By your logic, a prisoner who has a right to a last meal before his execution has the "freedom to eat a last meal before being executed." Sure, you can say that, but, that doesn't make the right to eat a last meal a civil liberty.

[Lex]

13. Freedom: "the power to act without externally imposed restraints"

It is not always a word that is the equivalent of a civil liberty--that is something you have pre-supposed, not me. It certainly can be used in that context, mind you, but it is also used in other contexts as well.

[Renegade08]

14. Sure, but the OP talks about "civil liberties," not just generic freedoms.

The right to marry, like the right to vote, just doesn't really fit well as a "civil liberty." Civil right, yes, but not a civil liberty.

[Lex]

16. I think the OP was making a larger general point

and not such a 2nd year Con Law kind of argument.

[Renegade08]

17. Dissing on second year con law law students? Cheap and petty.

Actually, most law students would make the arguments you've made in this thread, failing to see or recognize the unique attributes of the right to marry that make it very difficult to categorize the right as a "civil liberty." They, too, probably would conflate the right to marry with the freedom of association.

[really annoyed]

19. It's BOTH

It's equality under the law and the liberty to do so, since the government can't forbid such an association.

You forget the thousands of rights granted to married couples that associations do NOT have. We are talking about quality of life issues here.

In four states (Ohio, Michigan, Virginia, and Florida) amendments have passed that forbid any type of "association" gays, lesbians, and unwed couples might make that resemble marriage. So yes, we are dealing with the issue of liberty here.

Libertarian philosophy doesn't work in the real world, k?

[Waiting For Everyman]

15. Some divorce survivors would be ok with that. n/t

[happychatter]

18. I would be ok with that - perhaps it would also be an incentive for single payer health care

all the now UNcovered spouses and children...

big windfall for the insurance industry

then tax THEM into oblivion to pay for single payer