Why no one lost their rights in the "marriage protection" amendments
(Crossposted on Pam's House Blend)
A friend of mine changed his Facebook status to "...lost his fundamental civil rights today."
This got me thinking: Can we lose our fundamental civil rights?
I thought about the Declaration of Independence:
There is also the ninth amendment to the US Constitution:
A friend of mine changed his Facebook status to "...lost his fundamental civil rights today."
This got me thinking: Can we lose our fundamental civil rights?
I thought about the Declaration of Independence:
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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,Please note that the founders did not say the government created these rights, only secured the rights people already had.
There is also the ninth amendment to the US Constitution:
Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.So can a law or constitutional amendment remove a person's rights?
My answer is "no".
The rights remain; they are only infringed upon or violated.
Those who fought the revolutionary war did not fight to create rights; they fought to defend rights that were already intrinsically theirs. The constitution did not create rights; it only listed a few of them and noted that they were not to be infringed upon.
Likewise, the initiatives and propositions that were passed in Florida, Arizona and (probably) California may be legal, but they are immoral. They are an affront to the intrinsic rights of human beings, just as sure as laws against "miscegenation" were. People may create legal standards by which they allow themselves to violate the rights of others, but there is a higher moral law involved which people cannot change by vote.
Those who vote to enshrine such violations in founding documents of governments do harm to the moral character of the communities in which they live.
May their Gods have mercy on them.
The rights remain; they are only infringed upon or violated.
Those who fought the revolutionary war did not fight to create rights; they fought to defend rights that were already intrinsically theirs. The constitution did not create rights; it only listed a few of them and noted that they were not to be infringed upon.
Likewise, the initiatives and propositions that were passed in Florida, Arizona and (probably) California may be legal, but they are immoral. They are an affront to the intrinsic rights of human beings, just as sure as laws against "miscegenation" were. People may create legal standards by which they allow themselves to violate the rights of others, but there is a higher moral law involved which people cannot change by vote.
Those who vote to enshrine such violations in founding documents of governments do harm to the moral character of the communities in which they live.
May their Gods have mercy on them.
Categories
Justice Wednesday , marriage0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Why no one lost their rights in the "marriage protection" amendments.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://cindik.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/210
Leave a comment