(May 10, 2014 at 8:07 pm)Heywood Wrote:(May 10, 2014 at 6:27 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: That's funny, because the Delcaration says that certain rights are unalienable. The Constitution does not grant anybody rights. It recognizes the fact that we have those rights, and always should have had those rights. That was the entire point. And, that is the entire point of the marriage equality fight. Same-sex couples should have never been denied the right to marry in the first place. This isn't giving special rights, this is fixing a historical mistake.
Would you think it would be okay if the voters decided that we had the right to shoot gingers? (which is a stupid example because that right violates the rights of others, and marriage equality violates nobody's rights)
This is the first strong point I have seen you make in a very long time Ryantology. But the fact is, it doesn't matter what description the Constitutions gives these rights, they were enacted by a vote. People voted on which rights are "inalienable". Another constitution can come along and say a completely different set of rights are "inalienable". In principle we could desolve the Constitution just like we did the Articles of Confederation.
The Constitution, to my recollection, doesn't say anything about marriage. I don't believe marriage is an unalienable right under the Constitution.
The Constitution is not a complete enumeration of rights, nor is it meant to be.
Ninth Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Science is not a subject, but a method.