Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
So do most states. And yet that is a legislative choice, not a feature of the natural world.
|
I think it is derived from the natural world in that the institution of marriage was created by society to promote breeding. For some reason, the USSC seems to think that this is fundamental to our survival as a species. The way I know this is because the USSC said it in Loving vs. VA:
Quote:
|
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. (Skinner v. Oklahoma) ...
|
I don't think that two men marrying each other is fundamental to our very existence and survival. The reason that marriage is thought to be fundamental to our very existence and survival is because of the breeding that usually, but not always, ensues.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
The doctrine of "natural rights" seems to me to be a high-falluting way of saying, this is the way we've always done it and we're not willing to listen to the idea that we should do it any differently at any point in the future, so we're going to put the whole question of limits by saying it's a fact of nature. In many law schools, basing an argument on natural rights will win you smirks and derision.
|
As another once said, John Locke was considered the ideological progenitor of the American Revolution and who, by far, was the most often non-biblical writer quoted by the Founding Fathers.
Idiots at law schools may smirk or deride his theories, but the founding fathers didn't.
Where do you think they got the concept of inalienable rights? If you had read Locke, you would know.
The substantive due process fundamental rights are based on our inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This all is derivative from John Locke's natural rights philosophies.
Am I the only person who studied political and legal philosophers and understands which ones influenced our founding fathers? I sure do feel like it around here.
