This is another bad argument for marriage neutering.
In California, since the state Supreme Court ordered the neutering of state marriage licensing against the demonstrated will of the governed, and then refused to stay their decision until after an impending vote on a relevant constitutional amendment, same-sex couples were able to obtain state marriage licenses for several months. When the California Marriage Amendment was passed by voters, they were no longer able to obtain those licenses. So we have heard arguments that "our rights have been taken away" and that it isn't fair because "we used to have this right, but now we don't".
I like to make distinctions between actual natural rights and what is legal, allowed, or conducted under the auspices of the government. Not all freedoms are rights. Not all services a government offers are rights. The government performs services by the consent of the governed, and when the governed no longer consent, or correct a false consent made on their behalf, the service ceases.
Just because the government was passing out neutered marriage licenses doesn't mean it was a good thing or that there was an actual right to such things. State licensing is conducted on behalf of the people of a state. In California, we have partial direct democracy, in which we the people have retained some legislative abilities instead of allowing the elected legislatures to have all legislative power. Through our direct democratic process, we voted in 2000 via Proposition 22 to reaffirm marriage licensing as bride-groom only. The court decided there was a "right" for same-sex couples to obtain state-issued marriage licenses, but they overstepped their authority. Since when has a "right" applied to two people, but no more? Generally, two people have parental rights, but someone can even lose their "parental rights" by court order. How can there be a right to a state-issued license when it involves the consent of someone else? You may have a right to ask someone else for something, but that person has a right to say "no". Otherwise, it is a forcible intrusion on that person. In physical activity, we call that assault or rape.
While the Constitution of the United State of America does not enumerate all of the rights retained by the people, it does list such rights as freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. Yet, those rights to do nor force someone else to give us the use of a billboard, nor does it allow someone to yell "fire" in a crowded theater with immunity from prosecution. Gun owners can tell you plenty about how they were able to purchase and own and use certain arms in the past – but they are no longer allowed to do so legally. So even rights clearly enumerated in the Constitution have limits commonly recognized by courts.
This is not a strong argument for striking down the California Marriage Amendment (Proposition 8). It is akin to appealing to a court to issue you a diploma from the University of California (pick any one you like... Los Angeles, Berkeley, Davis) even though you've had no interest in attending classes at the university or performing course work. Instead, you have been very happy to study on your own terms with a professor in a warehouse. He refers to himself as a UC professor, but isn't. But unlike when you tried visiting a UC campus, you feel more comfortable in this warehouse, and you absolutely love your professor. And you believe you are learning. The court goes ahead and orders that you be given a UC diploma, and that others be able to obtain UC diplomas the same way. After all, those diplomas help in matters such as obtaining jobs with benefits and other things you want and enjoy.
Meanwhile, the people of California and vote in an amendment to the state constitution that restores traditional diploma-issuing when it comes to UC diplomas. If you want a UC diploma, you must meet the requirements. You don't have to go to a UC, but if you don't, you don't get a UC diploma.
You could argue that a "right" has been taken away from you. And you’d be wrong.
Neither the California Supreme Court nor the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals create or grant rights. No government does. A government can only recognize and protect rights, or by its actions, infringe upon rights. There is no right to a state-issued license. The people should retain ultimate authority in setting the licensing requirements.
In California, since the state Supreme Court ordered the neutering of state marriage licensing against the demonstrated will of the governed, and then refused to stay their decision until after an impending vote on a relevant constitutional amendment, same-sex couples were able to obtain state marriage licenses for several months. When the California Marriage Amendment was passed by voters, they were no longer able to obtain those licenses. So we have heard arguments that "our rights have been taken away" and that it isn't fair because "we used to have this right, but now we don't".
I like to make distinctions between actual natural rights and what is legal, allowed, or conducted under the auspices of the government. Not all freedoms are rights. Not all services a government offers are rights. The government performs services by the consent of the governed, and when the governed no longer consent, or correct a false consent made on their behalf, the service ceases.
Just because the government was passing out neutered marriage licenses doesn't mean it was a good thing or that there was an actual right to such things. State licensing is conducted on behalf of the people of a state. In California, we have partial direct democracy, in which we the people have retained some legislative abilities instead of allowing the elected legislatures to have all legislative power. Through our direct democratic process, we voted in 2000 via Proposition 22 to reaffirm marriage licensing as bride-groom only. The court decided there was a "right" for same-sex couples to obtain state-issued marriage licenses, but they overstepped their authority. Since when has a "right" applied to two people, but no more? Generally, two people have parental rights, but someone can even lose their "parental rights" by court order. How can there be a right to a state-issued license when it involves the consent of someone else? You may have a right to ask someone else for something, but that person has a right to say "no". Otherwise, it is a forcible intrusion on that person. In physical activity, we call that assault or rape.
While the Constitution of the United State of America does not enumerate all of the rights retained by the people, it does list such rights as freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. Yet, those rights to do nor force someone else to give us the use of a billboard, nor does it allow someone to yell "fire" in a crowded theater with immunity from prosecution. Gun owners can tell you plenty about how they were able to purchase and own and use certain arms in the past – but they are no longer allowed to do so legally. So even rights clearly enumerated in the Constitution have limits commonly recognized by courts.
This is not a strong argument for striking down the California Marriage Amendment (Proposition 8). It is akin to appealing to a court to issue you a diploma from the University of California (pick any one you like... Los Angeles, Berkeley, Davis) even though you've had no interest in attending classes at the university or performing course work. Instead, you have been very happy to study on your own terms with a professor in a warehouse. He refers to himself as a UC professor, but isn't. But unlike when you tried visiting a UC campus, you feel more comfortable in this warehouse, and you absolutely love your professor. And you believe you are learning. The court goes ahead and orders that you be given a UC diploma, and that others be able to obtain UC diplomas the same way. After all, those diplomas help in matters such as obtaining jobs with benefits and other things you want and enjoy.
Meanwhile, the people of California and vote in an amendment to the state constitution that restores traditional diploma-issuing when it comes to UC diplomas. If you want a UC diploma, you must meet the requirements. You don't have to go to a UC, but if you don't, you don't get a UC diploma.
You could argue that a "right" has been taken away from you. And you’d be wrong.
Neither the California Supreme Court nor the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals create or grant rights. No government does. A government can only recognize and protect rights, or by its actions, infringe upon rights. There is no right to a state-issued license. The people should retain ultimate authority in setting the licensing requirements.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I always welcome comments. Be aware that anything you write may be thoroughly analyzed and used in subsequent blog entries.