Gay Marriage

[Brant Gaede]

If gays want to get married let them get married. If marriage generally needs to be philosophically assaulted, changed or ended then do that next, if that's your thing. I'm personally in favor of private contracts. There could be myriad variations. In the meantime, Rome is burning.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If "equal treatment" is an individual right, then women have the right to be drafted into the military, so that they too are treated equally to men who are drafted. I.e., the men being drafted are being deprived of their "right" of "equal treatment" if the women are not also drafted.

See where this B.S. ends up?

Roger,

Sure.

It ends up with you insinuating that I either support government abuses or am too blind to see them.

That's plenty of BS in my book.

(I couldn't resist that one... )

But that aside, what would have been your argument against women suffrage back then? That they should have been prohibited from acquiring a legal right to vote because they might pass poor laws and entitlements? Or that they might be drafted? Or they might add a further burden on government entitlements?

That would be your reason for denying them the vote?

I see this as the essence of your arguments against gay marriage. Equivalent arguments are the reasons you have been giving so far for denying gays the right to legally sanctioned marriage.

Under your conception that equal treatment under the law is not a right, who are the people you believe who should be given preferential treatment in our courts and legislation? (If you say nobody, then you are arguing for equal treatment under the law.)

Also, if you think I need to constantly qualify my support of gay marriage with a disclaimer that I also support "removing all taxpaid privileges given to married couples," I also counter that you, as a married heterosexual, have the same duty every time you benefit from--and use--one of the "taxpaid privileges given to married couples," seeing that it was partially paid for by gays who are funding you without having the same benefit.

But that would be using your standard (making demands on what others need to declare). I don't use that standard. I think this kind of rhetorical condition is a waste of time when someone's views are well-known.

As to using intimidation to advance your arguments, I'm glad you piped down. We can disagree, even passionately, without saying (or insinuating) what a disappointing monster the other person has become for disagreeing. That is intimidation, whether it is in Rand's jargon or just plain old fashion garden-variety intimidation.

On a happier note, I will be there on Nov. 2 right along with you in spirit, cheering my lungs out.

In the Glenn Beck and Fox News section, I have presented many different analyses of the Left's penetration into modern American government--giving names, positions and history. So seeing the Left tank politically warms my heart on the deepest level imaginable.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Perhaps so, but "equal treatment" -- while laudably intended as part of one of the "Civil War Amendments" -- was also infamously used in the 1960s to deprive countless retaurant and hotel owners of their rights to liberty (free association) and property. Blacks, you see, have the "equal right" to accomodation and service from those engaging in "interstate commerce."...

Roger,

It sure would be different if humans were what Robert Bidinotto calls "principles with feet." Then you just make a rational law and everyone obeys.

Unfortunately, people are often complicated, especially when longstanding fear and hatred are involved. And they play with guns. At night. When nobody's looking.

Sometimes you just have to take out the hornet's nest to get rid of the killing and maiming.

If you want to use Objectivist classifications, I put those situations in the same category as "emergency."

With the present awakening, I am sure we will see a trend toward smaller government. As intellectuals, we have a responsibility to keep the ideas that led to this stay in the public discourse.

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

[....] what would have been your argument against women suffrage back then? That they should have been prohibited from acquiring a legal right to vote because they might pass poor laws and entitlements? Or that they might be drafted? Or they might add a further burden on government entitlements?

That would be your reason for denying them the vote?

Why would I deny either women, or blacks, or Mormons, or whomever the vote -- any more than I would deny any of them the right to bear arms, or to engage in free speech, or to engage in free association?

In colonial times, the issue was framed as "no taxation without representation." But what the colonists fundamentally objected to was the fact that they had no say in how they were to be governed, that they were subject to someone else's (Great Britain's) arbitrary whims. They were right.

Voting is a form of freedom of association, and it is ~supposed~ to afford a person the chance to participate in his own governance -- though without a strictly limited constitution that has not been severely compromised by activist, statist court decisions, this freedom is reduced to helping to sway trends to and from one or another flavor-of-the-decade of statism. These days, one can be much more effective by leveraging one's views, i.e., by taking part in the public debate and giving assistance to those who carry the ball as candidates and who target funds to where they will do the most good in campaigns.

And yes, people exercising their right of free association (by voting, or in other ways) can end up violating (or helping to violate) the rights of others -- just as people exercising their right to bear arms can violate the rights of others. Your right of free association or to bear arms ends where my right to be free of aggression begins.

I see this as the essence of your arguments against gay marriage. Equivalent arguments are the reasons you have been giving so far for denying gays the right to legally sanctioned marriage.

Under your conception that equal treatment under the law is not a right, who are the people you believe who should be given preferential treatment in our courts and legislation? (If you say nobody, then you are arguing for equal treatment under the law.)

Michael, to me the fundamental is upholding individual rights, but upholding individual rights and providing equal treatment under the law are not co-extensive. In fact, they often operate assymetrically. That is why I focus on upholding individual rights as the primary. If that is done, then ~legitimate~ equal treatment under the law will take care of itself.

The issue is like pleasure vs. rationality as the guide to happiness. If you act in a truly rational manner, then -- according to Rand, and I agree with her -- you will necessarily be happy. But if you seek to obtain pleasure, without regard to rationality, you will ~not~ necessarily be happy. (And no, I do not mean "rational" like the Nazis or Soviet Russians.)

All legally upheld individual rights necessarily result, as a consequence, in equal treatment under the law -- but not all equal treatment under the law necessarily results in the upholding of individual rights. (Reference the "civil rights" law that forbids discimination in "public accomodations.")

And just as not all legally upheld individual rights necessarily result in something moral or desirable being achieved (e.g., allowing bigoted property owners to exercise their right to free association in denying meals or rooms to people of another race) -- so also not all achievements of something moral or desirable are done the right way, i.e., by a means that upholds individual rights. (Again, reference the "civil rights" law that forbids discrimination in "public accomodations.")

Also, if you think I need to constantly qualify my support of gay marriage with a disclaimer that I also support "removing all taxpaid privileges given to married couples," I also counter that you, as a married heterosexual, have the same duty every time you benefit from--and use--one of the "taxpaid privileges given to married couples," seeing that it was partially paid for by gays who are funding you without having the same benefit.

But that would be using your standard (making demands on what others need to declare). I don't use that standard. I think this kind of rhetorical condition is a waste of time when someone's views are well-known.

Why limit the argument by referring to ~gays~ who partially paid for the privilege without having the same benefit? Divorced, widowed, single, etc. -- these people all also pay taxes without receiving the marriage tax privileges. Why force even ~more~ of a burden on them (actually, ~all~ of us) by extending the privilege to gays? Why not instead simply say: no marriage tax benefits? Which effectively would requiring also saying: no state sponsored marriage...

I absolutely agree that such "riders" or disclaimers need to be added to one's public arguments. If I were ever to argue the issue publicly, I would probably alienate myself from those who are simply anti-gay, but think the marriage taxpaid privileges are perfectly fine for ~themselves~. Perhaps we don't need to "dot the i" here on this list -- except there are those who really need to hear the point made explicitly. This discussions are not just two people jousting in an empty stadium, after all, and some of the spectators really do benefit from hearing the full context laid out in all its logic and implications.

Rand expressed the issue very well in her essay on "The Question of Scholarships." As long as you are ready and willing to do without government taxpaid privileges and advocate and work for their repeal, you are morally entitled to recoup tax money that was seized without your consent. Gay legally married couples are just as entitled, to just that extent. The only problem is, the vast majority of heterosexual ~and~ gay married couples would favor continuing such a policy, and advocating the expansion of the pool of recipients is ~not~ an effective means of eliminating those taxpaid privileges. (Neither is working for their repeal by tying one hand behind one's back and declining them, if you are eligible for them.)

[....]On a happier note, I will be there on Nov. 2 right along with you in spirit, cheering my lungs out....seeing the Left tank politically warms my heart on the deepest level imaginable.

Amen to that!

REB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Rand expressed the issue very well in her essay on "The Question of Scholarships." As long as you are ready and willing to do without government taxpaid privileges and advocate and work for their repeal, you are morally entitled to recoup tax money that was seized without your consent. Gay legally married couples are just as entitled, to just that extent.

Roger,

Does this mean that you do not object to gays having legally sanctioned marriages?

If not, what does "entitled" mean in your statement?

All legally upheld individual rights necessarily result, as a consequence, in equal treatment under the law -- but not all equal treatment under the law necessarily results in the upholding of individual rights.

Just to be clear, I disagree with this, but not all of it. I hold that equal treatment under the law is an individual right. Using it as a counterpart against "individual rights," as if it were something else, is not cognitively precise. At least not in the conceptual hierarchy I hold. It would be like comparing human beings and trombone players as if they were two different species.

The part I agree with is that equal treatment under the law does not necessarily result in other individual rights. If the set of laws is a set of repressive commands, say something like all slaves are equal under the law, than I agree that being an equal slave will not result in other individual rights.

Where I disagree is the following. Once individual rights are present in the charter document, the logical force of equal treatment under the law literally makes people extend those rights to people who were excluded. In our history, they even tried to get around this logic by defining a black person as three fifths of a human being. But it didn't work.

You cannot enumerate individual rights and hold that all people are equal under the law, then make some people more "equal" than others. Since we are human beings and not walking abstractions, it took a vast amount of bickering, abuses of power and even a civil war for this logic to settle on including some of the excluded people. But the driving premise was equal treatment.

I shudder to think what would have happened if slavery had been explicitly mentioned in the Constitution or in our initial Bill of Rights. The entire Bill of Rights is premised on equal treatment under the law (with all men created equal even being considered as a self-evident truth in the Declaration of Independence). If an explicit caste system, or human beings as chattel system, were in our charter document, I agree that the right to equal treatment under the law would not have resulted in extending individual rights to the excluded people.

I also agree that people try to extend the equal treatment concept to justify perversions of rights. But, in my understanding, rights are a set of principles that work in conjunction with each other, not stand-alone principles for an entire justice system. Any one of them can be perverted to undermine the others, not just the equal treatment principle. (A good example is thinking that the right to free speech includes being allowed to shout, "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire so you can get off on watching people trample each other.)

I am confused that you claim, on one hand, that people have to make certain disclaimers when arguing in public, yet on the other, you are fine with saying that equal treatment under the law is not essential to our justice system. That it is a result, not a specific right. Using that logic, I could say that all individual rights (the other individual rights) are a result of being rational, so if we adopt a rational system of law, our individual rights are not really essential to the justice system.

Once again, that is like saying not all trombone players are human beings and if you claim they are human beings, it is a camel sticking its nose under the tent. I don't understand this logic, and what part I do understand of it, I disagree with it.

I totally disagree with the idea of throwing out one principle (or right) as a means of correcting an abuse of another principle (or right). In other words, I do not see excluding gays from legally sanctioned marriages, i.e., denying them their right to equal treatment under the law, as a valid form of correcting government entitlements of all marriages. No matter how many individual rights you withhold from gays, this will not overturn or correct government entitlements for everyone. Only attacking government entitlements at the root, i.e., qua government entitlements, will overturn them.

There is also a premise operating in this discussion that I am becoming more and more uncomfortable with. It is that government involvement in marriage exists for the sole purpose of granting entitlements. That doesn't sound right, even on the surface. The body of family laws is not just a list of entitlements. Family law is a legitimate branch of law.

Don't forget that gay marriage also comes with gay divorce and alimony, etc.

Michael

[Selene]

Michael:

Family law is a legitimate branch of law.

Now that would be an interesting debate:

Resolved that: Family law, as currently practiced, is a legitimate branch of law.

The definition of "family" and "legitimate" would be critical to having a valuable debate.

Adam

[rodney203]

Quote:

"Family law is a legitimate branch of law."

---------------------------------------------------------------

Again, someone needs to re-read essays such as "Man's Rights", and "The Nature Of Government", along with Objectivist principles such as the idea that the government has no proper role to play in the moral lives of its citizens (other than enforcement of private contracts, of course).

[Brant Gaede]

I hold that equal treatment under the law is an individual right. Using it as a counterpart against "individual rights," as if it were something else, is not cognitively precise. At least not in the conceptual hierarchy I hold. It would be like comparing human beings and trombone players as if they were two different species.

The part I agree with is that equal treatment under the law does not necessarily result in other individual rights. If the set of laws is a set of repressive commands, say something like all slaves are equal under the law, than I agree that being an equal slave will not result in other individual rights.

Laws do not result in individual rights, but individual rights being legally respected and protected. Unequal treatment under the law is rights' violating. You can be equally treated by a rights' violating law too. It's a rather sloppy formulation to say equal treatment is an individual right in itself. I cannot go out and equally treat under a law the way I can go trekking trick or treat if I were still a kid.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Quote:

"Family law is a legitimate branch of law."

---------------------------------------------------------------

Again, someone needs to re-read essays such as "Man's Rights", and "The Nature Of Government", along with Objectivist principles such as the idea that the government has no proper role to play in the moral lives of its citizens (other than enforcement of private contracts, of course).

You don't need government to enforce private contracts but arbitration and maybe putting up a bond. Reputation counts for a lot too. Courts to settle disputes don't have to be government courts nor is law itself necessarily necessary. As for "family law"--good luck with putting that up as Objectivism, Michael.

--Brant

Edited October 19, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Selene]

Quote:

"Family law is a legitimate branch of law."

---------------------------------------------------------------

Again, someone needs to re-read essays such as "Man's Rights", and "The Nature Of Government", along with Objectivist principles such as the idea that the government has no proper role to play in the moral lives of its citizens (other than enforcement of private contracts, of course).

You don't need government to enforce private contracts but arbitration and maybe putting up a bond. Reputation counts for a lot too. Courts to settle disputes don't have to be government courts nor is law itself necessarily necessary. As for "family law"--good luck with putting that up as Objectivism, Michael.

--Brant

Brant:

Correct. Supposedly, upwards of eighty percent (80%) of the business disputes in the United States are settled by the American Arbitration Association. I have participated in many LIBOR arbitration/mediation disputes which are mandatory, if a Realtor, or real estate agent wishes to be a participant in the MLS [Multiple Listing Service] which you basically cannot function without.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It's a rather sloppy formulation to say equal treatment is an individual right in itself. I cannot go out and equally treat under a law the way I can go trekking trick or treat if I were still a kid.

Brant,

I disagree.

You go to court and most certainly expect equal treatment under the law. If you don't get it, you appeal--based precisely on the fact that you did not get equal treatment as X or Y. And you frame it as the court violating your rights.

On a statutory level, if unequal treatment is in the statutes, especially if you are the in the group that gets the crap end of the stick, you protest and elect people who will change it. The nature of your protest will reflect this, too. You will harp on about justice, fairness, etc. And, yes, equal rights under the law.

I see no way on earth to justify saying that a person does not have a right against prejudice by the government with respect to due process and other government matters, and still advocate freedom under a republic.

Michael

[rodney203]

Someone posted:

"Correct. Supposedly, upwards of eighty percent (80%) of the business disputes in the United States are settled by the American Arbitration Association. I have participated in many LIBOR arbitration/mediation disputes which are mandatory, if a Realtor, or real estate agent wishes to be a participant in the MLS [Multiple Listing Service] which you basically cannot function without"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You guys just don't get it, cause some of you are so busy nit-picking. The "American Arbitration Association" is itself a contractual arrangement, backed up by our system of civil courts and laws.

[Brant Gaede]

It's a rather sloppy formulation to say equal treatment is an individual right in itself. I cannot go out and equally treat under a law the way I can go trekking trick or treat if I were still a kid.

Brant,

I disagree.

You go to court and most certainly expect equal treatment under the law. If you don't get it, you appeal--based precisely on the fact that you did not get equal treatment as X or Y. And you frame it as the court violating your rights.

On a statutory level, if unequal treatment is in the statutes, especially if you are the in the group that gets the crap end of the stick, you protest and elect people who will change it. The nature of your protest will reflect this, too. You will harp on about justice, fairness, etc. And, yes, equal rights under the law.

I see no way on earth to justify saying that a person does not have a right against prejudice by the government with respect to due process and other government matters, and still advocate freedom under a republic.

Michael

Okay, Michael. Under what law, particularly, could we be talking about? What law that is in itself legitimate qua Objectivism or individual rights' theory? If the law is in itself rights' violating for everyone then the law itself gets chucked. The laws you seem to be referring to seem to be favor granting.

--Brant

how many laws could a woodchuck chuck if the woodchuck chucked laws?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

Not any specific law. A right: equal treatment under the law. This means that my rights have the same weight at your rights under the law. My restrictions are the same as your restrictions under the law. Etc., etc. etc.

If you want a specific law that spells this out, try the Ninth Amendment.

Equal treatment under the law is an individual right we all have in the USA. It is not a right other people have in some other countries. In those places, the rights of certain important people have more weight under the law than the rest of the people. Or less weight if the person is deemed not deserving of equal treatment within that culture,

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Brant,

Not any specific law. A right: equal treatment under the law. This means that my rights have the same weight at your rights under the law. My restrictions are the same as your restrictions under the law. Etc., etc. etc.

If you want a specific law that spells this out, try the Ninth Amendment.

Equal treatment under the law is an individual right we all have in the USA. It is not a right other people have in some other countries. In those places, the rights of certain important people have more weight under the law than the rest of the people. Or less weight if the person is deemed not deserving of equal treatment within that culture,

Michael,

Equal treatment under the law begs the question of what law. I have the right to get the same Social Security as you do by the same formulas? I have the same right as you to bid on the construction contract for the World Trade Center to be granted by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey mid-1960s? I have the same right as you to get subsidies for not growing wheat, all else being equal? I have the same right as you to be a Storm Trooper under the Storm Trooper enabling and recruitment statute to be enacted in 2015? I have the same right as you to get government goodies?

Now, let's take the right to self defense. Assuming any statute to be properly constituted in this regard except men have this right under the law and women don't, the problem really isn't unequal treatment for the law might be rewritten to deny both him and her instead of taking in both. Your equal treatment "right" could easily end up meaning equally shafted.

The IXth here is irrelevant and constitutes circularity in your argument. The right to a chicken in your pot is not covered by it.

--Brant

Edited October 19, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Equal treatment under the law begs the question of what law.

Brant,

So what?

The right to free speech begs the question of what speech. People can use it to incite a violent crowd.

Does that make it less of a right?

I don't understand your standard.

btw - The Ninth Amendment certainly is relevant. Since the Constitution does not make a provision for prejudice in favor of one set of individuals for applying the law, then all individuals have the right to equal treatment under the law.

That's clearly in line with what the amendment says. How is that not relevant when it defines the standard of the right?

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Equal treatment under the law begs the question of what law.

Brant,

So what?

The right to free speech begs the question of what speech. People can use it to incite a violent crowd.

Does that make it less of a right?

I don't understand your standard.

btw - The Ninth Amendment certainly is relevant. Since the Constitution does not make a provision for prejudice in favor of one set of individuals for applying the law, then all individuals have the right to equal treatment under the law.

That's clearly in line with what the amendment says. How is that not relevant when it defines the standard of the right?

Michael

But we agree there is a right to free speech. Law properly addresses rights' violations. Equal treatment under the law is a minor structural problem. It is important today because of all the laws, most of which shouldn't exist or are controversial, so we all get equality at the government trough. Now some posts back I said let the gays have their marriages if that's what they want. Then address the general statutes. This was for social and psychological reasons and is in the context of temporary maybe, or one step back, two steps forward, or what have you. Strategy and tactics. Roger got over-wrought by his ideology and hit his drum too hard. I mean, come back in 500 years and marriage will likely still be with us, so why have all this unnecessary antagonism in the meantime when there are much more important things to deal with right now?

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

I am going to insist because this is important.

Do you believe that individuals should have no right to equal treatment under that law? That it is OK to send one man to prison and let another man go free for an identical crime under identical circumstances--and call that justice? That one man has a right to habeas corpus and another man not under identical circumstances--and this is OK by you? That one man can vote and another man not under identical legal impediments--and both situations are perfectly legal at the same time?

I could go on.

Or how about this? Do you believe it is OK for the government to pass a law granting privileged access to government buildings for, say, white people and exclude access for, say, black people? Thus one will not be bothered and the other will be arrested for trespassing for entering the same public building at the same time? Or, if you don't like using races, how about restricting access according to whether the person is heterosexual or homosexual? Or man or woman? Or Christian or Muslim? Or football players or basketball players? Is that OK with you, or don't they all have the right to equal treatment under the law?

Once again, I could go on and on and on.

If you wish to deny the right to equal treatment under the law, qua right, that is what you get, i.e., treatment under the law according to the whims of the judges and/or politicians. There is nothing else to instruct them.

Individual rights includes the right to equal justice. How can it work any other way?

Michael

[equality72521]

why should the definition of male be limited to those with a penis. this is unjust. we need to abolish it, its discrimination, and it is absurd.

[Selene]

why should the definition of male be limited to those with a penis. this is unjust. we need to abolish it, its discrimination, and it is absurd.

Does that make your statement the Peter Principle?

[Roger Bissell]

Brant,

I am going to insist because this is important.

Do you believe that individuals should have no right to equal treatment under that law? That it is OK to send one man to prison and let another man go free for an identical crime under identical circumstances--and call that justice? That one man has a right to habeas corpus and another man not under identical circumstances--and this is OK by you? That one man can vote and another man not under identical legal impediments--and both situations are perfectly legal at the same time?

I could go on.

Or how about this? Do you believe it is OK for the government to pass a law granting privileged access to government buildings for, say, white people and exclude access for, say, black people? Thus one will not be bothered and the other will be arrested for trespassing for entering the same public building at the same time? Or, if you don't like using races, how about restricting access according to whether the person is heterosexual or homosexual? Or man or woman? Or Christian or Muslim? Or football players or basketball players? Is that OK with you, or don't they all have the right to equal treatment under the law?

Once again, I could go on and on and on.

If you wish to deny the right to equal treatment under the law, qua right, that is what you get, i.e., treatment under the law according to the whims of the judges and/or politicians. There is nothing else to instruct them.

Individual rights includes the right to equal justice. How can it work any other way?

Michael

"Equal justice" is an extraneous concept.

If you and I are both told by our government that we have the Constitutional right to a jury trial, and then we are both arrested and one of us gets a jury trial, while the other doesn't, the recourse is ~not~ to argue "he got a jury trial and I didn't." That sounds like kids fighting over candy, or teenage girls fighting boys. The recourse is to argue: I was promised a jury trial, and you haven't given me one, you son of a bitch. You have broken our Social Contract (denied me my Constitutional right), so you'd better give me a jury trial NOW!

Again, what does ~equality~ have to do with it? If NO ONE ELSE were arrested and tried, and I were denied a jury trial, I would not argue "equal justice denied." I would argue JUSTICE DENIED.

I really do not get the fixation on equality in regard to rights (as against privileges).

Legal inequality that denies the rights of some individuals is not unjust because it is ~inequality~, but because it ~denies the rights of some individuals~. The military draft is a perfect example. Expanding it to women, to be "fair" and give "equal treatment under the law," would NOT have remedied the rights denial. Men weren't denied their rights to liberty because women weren't ALSO denied those rights -- but because they, the men, were denied THEIR rights, PERIOD!

I'm not interested in further debating legal inequality in regard to ~privileges~. "Equal treatment under the law" in regard to privileges seems like a rather rickety, grotesque anti-concept to me.

REB

[rodney203]

Well put REB. Hence the fallicy of granting homosexuals "equal rights to special treatment". (remember, the only purpose of government involvement in marriage/family is for granting special privileges). Granting such "rights" would only serve to decrease the size of the underprivileged group, thereby entrenching the injustice further.

So, my position on this has adjusted since the topic was started. I now take a dimmer view of gay marriage, not because I particularly dislike anyone, but as a matter of justice.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm not interested in further debating legal inequality in regard to ~privileges~.

Roger,

I have yet to debate this topic.

You have been debating it up a storm.

I have been discussing equal treatment under the law for all individuals. I do not believe in special treatment for some over others under identical circumstances. You somehow don't either from what I can discern between all the inflamed rhetoric, but resist saying that treatment must be equal. This is logical weirdness for me. It seems that nobody can get special treatment, but they don't get equal treatment, either. But isn't equal the opposite of special in this context? Yup.

Anyway, let's give equal privileges under the law a spin. I believe if equal treatment under the law were preached, all minority privileges would disappear. Anyone would be able to claim any privilege granted to any minority. In other words, it would be impossible to justify protecting minorities, or majorities for that matter. People would have to be treated equally.

So if there were a special scholarship fund for, say, Native Americans, a white kid could also quality. That's where the legal logic would ultimately lead (as the logic from "all men are created equal" ultimately led to the abolishment of slavery).

Since this would bankrupt the Union, this is a great argument for getting rid of special entitlements.

On a different note, let's look at this:

"Equal justice" is an extraneous concept.

Really?

Well, I decided to look it up with a quick Google search. Here is the Wikipedia article: Equal justice under law. The article starts like this:

Equal justice under law is a phrase engraved on the front of the United States Supreme Court building in Washington D.C.

You should read the article. The phrase comes from a Supreme Court discussion of the Fourteenth Amendment. Also, here is a quote from the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1:

... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Since we are nitpicking, "equal protection of the laws" sounds a hell of a lot like an explicit right to me.

Sorry, Roger. I just don't find your arguments compelling enough to change my thinking.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course.

Michael

[rodney203]

Michael,

May I make two additional comments for what it's worth.

1) Though I was not in the smoke filled room when the Amendment was drafted, I have long had a stinking hunch that the clause "equal protection under the laws" was deliberately chosen rather then the option "equal treatment under the laws". This was done because both politicians and citizens were well aware that the country did not want the government to treat everyone equally (i.e., equally fairly).

2) As the above comments demonstrates, I am all for equal treatment, and the concept is not completely without its merit. All I am saying (and possibly Roger too) is that "equal treatment" by the state is not a fundamental, stand alone principle. By itself it would inmply a relativistic approach to the relationship of the state to its citizens. As long as everyone were treated equally one would have no recognized right to complain. That said, a recognition of the right to "equal treatment" would be an improvement in the current situation, except that it would lead to true justice only in a slow, roundabout way, through litigation.

Edited October 20, 2010 by rodney203

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

All I am saying (and possibly Roger too) is that "equal treatment" by the state is not a fundamental, stand alone principle.

Rodney,

My point is that neither are the other rights "fundamental stand alone"--including freedom of speech, as I have illustrated.

So why does the "fundamental stand alone" condition have to apply to one right--to the point of invalidation--but not to the others?

I don't get the logic.

Michael