@okie,
okie wrote:
parados wrote:
So lets examine your claim that it is a liberal concept to impose the morality of a few on the many.
What does the constitution do if not protect the minority from the morality of the many?
No one is forcing you to marry someone of the same sex.
No one is forcing you to have an abortion.
You are not being forced into a particular act. You are only being told that other people can do it but you are not required to. Morality is what? Your action or merely your perception of how others should act? Because others are doing things that you think are immoral doesn't mean they are "imposing their morality" on you. When you prevent people from doing something than you ARE "imposing your morality" because you are forcing them to act a certain way. Sometimes it is good to force morality on others when we declare certain acts criminal. But those acts are ones where a person violated the rights of another. Your rights are NOT violated if 2 men marry. They didn't invade your home. They didn't take any real property from you. I can't think of any right of yours they violated. You are merely upset that they are doing something you wouldn't do.
Parados, you take the "nobody is forcing you" argument to the illogical extreme. Nobody forces you to run a red light either, but we still have laws against it, because it has been judged to be injurious to others, and society in general. Nobody forces you to not have insurance on your automobile, but we still have laws against not having insurance. So our rights are violated if a person chooses to run a red light, and the same is true for people without auto insurance.
Every society has a set of laws, for the good of the society as a whole. We walk a fine line between freedom to do anything, but we have traditionally drawn lines against some behaviors, that may be personal, for example, in most states, it is against the law for a woman or a man to have control over their own body, to use it for prostitution, thus there is no right to privacy to engage in that behavior. Obviously, right to privacy was a fictitious thing not found in the constitution. I could go on, but I think I have made the point.
Laws exist, get over it, Parados.
Okie, in your "laws exist" thesis, you failed to take into consideration that some laws are unconstitutional. ALL laws that affect individual rights to life, liberty, property, etc., or deny an entire class of people equal protection under the law must comply (at a minimum) with the rational basis test. The law must serve a legitimate government interest and the means used must be rationally related to the ends. If the law denies or disparages fundamental civil rights, e.g., marriage, privacy, etc., the law must comply with the strict scrutiny test. The law must serve a compelling government interest and the means used must be necessary to the ends.
There is no question that the state has a legitimate interest in regulating traffic for the safety of the traveling public. Thus, laws that penalize a person for running a red light are rationally related to the state's legitimate interest in road safety. Similarly, laws are enacted to require persons to carry valid drivers licenses when they operate a vehicle on our public roads. Licensing laws serve a legitimate state interest in making sure that only qualified drivers are allowed to operate vehicles on our public roads. However, if the law provided that all persons over the age of 16,
except homosexuals, have the right to apply for drivers' licenses, the law would be unconstitutional. And that's the point you don't comprehend.
Does the state have a legitimate interest in denying a person a license based on that person's sexual orientation? The fact that homosexual persons are a historically disfavored and stigmatized class of people does not justify discrimination in perpetuity. The fact that some people morally disapprove of homosexuality does not justify laws that discriminate against gay people. Our society is not harmed in any manner whatsoever if gay people are granted licenses. Because laws that discriminate against gay people do not serve any legitimate state interest whatsoever, those laws are unconstitutional.
Additionally, the "right to privacy" exists. Although the right to privacy is in fact embodied in many of our enumerated rights, a right doesn't need to be expressly enumerated in the Constitution to exist. The constitution does not grant or confer rights. It secures the entire universe of rights we have by virtue of our birth. For instance, the Constitution doesn't expressly grant you the right to wear a hat, but you have the right to wear a hat if you want to. If the state enacts a law that bans the wearing of hats, that law (like all other laws) must be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. If a hat banning law is arbitrary and capricious, it is unconstitutional.
Foxfyre wrote an insane sentence claiming that it is a liberal concept to impose the morality of a few on the many. Parados wanted her to explore this inanity. How does providing gay people with equal protection under the law, something that gay people are constitutionally entitled to, harm Foxfyre in any way? She might morally disapprove of homosexuality, but so what? No one is forcing Foxfyre to enter into a homosexual marriage. Similarly, individual women have a right to determine their own procreative destiny. Foxfyre might morally disapprove of abortions, but so what? No one is forcing Foxfyre to have an abortion. Thus, no one is forcing their morality on Foxfyre. In reality, it is Foxfyre who desires to impose her morality on others. Because Foxfyre morally disapproves of abortions and gay marriages, she wants to pass laws to force her views on everyone else in society.
Thus, Foxfyre is accusing the liberals of doing what she is guilty of herself. She is the one that wants to impose HER morality on others through the operation of our laws. Liberals, on the other hand, have the right to tell Foxfyre to keep her nose out of other people's business.
