Individual vs. Collective Rights

[Pocketman]

The “equal protection clause" in the U.S. Constitution 14th Amendment “…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

In a recent case involving the 2nd Amendment Justice Antonin Scalia in writing for the majority in District of Columbia v. Heller stated “Nowhere else in the Constitution does a ‘right’ attributed to ‘the people’ refer to anything other than an individual right.”

The subject of “gay rights” came up in another thread. It’s my thought that if a gay man is prohibited from marrying another man, how is it discriminatory if a heterosexual man is also subject to the same prohibition? In this example, the right to marry is being extended to two persons (of the same sex) rather than to each individually. This is only an example. This post is NOT about gay marriage, but rather to raise the question of whether Constitutional rights for individuals extend to groups?

 

[Woodrow]

The issue is not whether gay men are being discriminated against because they cannot marry other men, and neither can straight men. The issue of discrimination arises from the notion that same sex couples aren't receiving the same protection under the law as couples of opposing sexes. The point is moot because marriage is not a Constitutional right.

 

[redneckmedic]

I think this thread will crash and burn a flaming death if you don't come up with another example. I could really beat this dead horse... but what the point.

 

[dross]

There is no such thing as "collective rights." By it's very name it must mean that sometimes the collective has a "right" that might conflict with an individual right. Collectives only have power, not rights. When a collective power interferes with an individual right, the collective must demonstrate a compelling reason to exercise that power.

Here's how the gay marriage issue can be resolved. "Marriage," however you decide to define that is something I think the government should not be involved with.

Let's deal with this under contract law. I should be able to sign a contract with whom I wish, for anything I wish. Others shouldn't have to recognize that contract - whether it's a gay marriage contract or a heterosexual marriage contract.

So, if I have an apartment, I should be able to exclude homosexual married couples, non-married couples, or whomever from renting there - after all, I own the apartment. Also, I might have an apartment where I don't allow heteroesexual couples to live - that should also be okay.

Let freedom ring.

 

[Bond 281]

The issue is not whether gay men are being discriminated against because they cannot marry other men, and neither can straight men. The issue of discrimination arises from the notion that same sex couples aren't receiving the same protection under the law as couples of opposing sexes. The point is moot because marriage is not a Constitutional right.

It may not be a specifically enumerated right, but don't fall into the trap of thinking that the only rights we have are all in the Constitution. I'm not even saying it necessarily applies in this instance, but just wanted to point it out.

 

[Pocketman]

The issue is not whether gay men are being discriminated against because they cannot marry other men, and neither can straight men. The issue of discrimination arises from the notion that same sex couples aren't receiving the same protection under the law as couples of opposing sexes. The point is moot because marriage is not a Constitutional right.

This is my question - do "couples" same sex or otherwise, have rights?

I think this thread will crash and burn a flaming death if you don't come up with another example. I could really beat this dead horse... but what the point.

I really didn't start out trying to address gay marriage, but off hand cannot come up with another example. From my perspective, this is an attempt to apply rights to a couple rather than an individual.

I'm questioning if there is even such thing as collective rights. As dross posted, it doesn't appear there is. Even what we refer to as "states' rights" is really power reserved to the states.

 

[Libertarian01]

Pocketman (et alia),

It is my belief that "rights" as we use the term are derived from our basic needs as living organisms.

As an example we all have the need to feed, thus we have the right to try to find food. I say "try" because nothing is guaranteed, we may succeed or fail but our right is only to try.

We have the need to survive an attack by another predator, so we have the right to try to defend ourselves.

We have the need to express ourselves, thus again we have the right to try to communicate our ideas and thoughts with others.

Our needs/rights are given to us by our Creator, and thus can only be taken away by said Creator. If you believe in God, then that would be the source of creation. If you are agnostic or an atheist then the Creator would simply be "Nature."

A collective is not an individual organism, and thus has no rights bestowed upon it. The collective creates some sort of tool (read: government) to help sort out conflict in such a way that every individual can agree with it. My right to inform you of the horrors of the national debt might(?) conflict with your right to sleep if I scream in your neighborhood on a bullhorn at 3AM! The government chosen by the collective may oppress my right to speak during certain hours and/or at certain decibels.

The collective does in and of itself create certain needs, but these do not equal rights. One million human beings living together creates a lot of poop and had better find a way to get rid of their waste, but this does not create for the one million a collective right, just a necessity for waste disposal IF they desire healthy living conditions.

If you and I get in a boat to go fishing we become a defacto collective of two. Neither one of us gains any rights nor looses any rights. We do not gain any special rights just because we are two people in a boat.

By default we may create a communist or socialist government in the boat by simply sharing what we have. This would never be officially said of course - it would just happen. You bring the soda pop and I'll make sandwiches. You pay for the fishing licenses and I'll pay for the gas. From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs, as it were. Nowhere in here do we gain any special privilege or rights just because we are a collective of two (2) in a boat.

Does this clarify?

Regards,

Doug

 

[J_Wales]

Pocketman (et alia),

It is my belief that "rights" as we use the term are derived from our basic needs as living organisms.

As an example we all have the need to feed, thus we have the right to try to find food. I say "try" because nothing is guaranteed, we may succeed or fail but our right is only to try.

We have the need to survive an attack by another predator, so we have the right to try to defend ourselves.

We have the need to express ourselves, thus again we have the right to try to communicate our ideas and thoughts with others.

Our needs/rights are given to us by our Creator, and thus can only be taken away by said Creator. If you believe in God, then that would be the source of creation. If you are agnostic or an atheist then the Creator would simply be "Nature."

A collective is not an individual organism, and thus has no rights bestowed upon it. The collective creates some sort of tool (read: government) to help sort out conflict in such a way that every individual can agree with it. My right to inform you of the horrors of the national debt might(?) conflict with your right to sleep if I scream in your neighborhood on a bullhorn at 3AM! The government chosen by the collective may oppress my right to speak during certain hours and/or at certain decibels.

The collective does in and of itself create certain needs, but these do not equal rights. One million human beings living together creates a lot of poop and had better find a way to get rid of their waste, but this does not create for the one million a collective right, just a necessity for waste disposal IF they desire healthy living conditions.

If you and I get in a boat to go fishing we become a defacto collective of two. Neither one of us gains any rights nor looses any rights. We do not gain any special rights just because we are two people in a boat.

By default we may create a communist or socialist government in the boat by simply sharing what we have. This would never be officially said of course - it would just happen. You bring the soda pop and I'll make sandwiches. You pay for the fishing licenses and I'll pay for the gas. From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs, as it were. Nowhere in here do we gain any special privilege or rights just because we are a collective of two (2) in a boat.

Does this clarify?

Regards,

Doug

Well said.

 

[trinitrotoluene85]

Pocketman (et alia),

It is my belief that "rights" as we use the term are derived from our basic needs as living organisms.

As an example we all have the need to feed, thus we have the right to try to find food. I say "try" because nothing is guaranteed, we may succeed or fail but our right is only to try.

We have the need to survive an attack by another predator, so we have the right to try to defend ourselves.

We have the need to express ourselves, thus again we have the right to try to communicate our ideas and thoughts with others.

Our needs/rights are given to us by our Creator, and thus can only be taken away by said Creator. If you believe in God, then that would be the source of creation. If you are agnostic or an atheist then the Creator would simply be "Nature."

A collective is not an individual organism, and thus has no rights bestowed upon it. The collective creates some sort of tool (read: government) to help sort out conflict in such a way that every individual can agree with it. My right to inform you of the horrors of the national debt might(?) conflict with your right to sleep if I scream in your neighborhood on a bullhorn at 3AM! The government chosen by the collective may oppress my right to speak during certain hours and/or at certain decibels.

The collective does in and of itself create certain needs, but these do not equal rights. One million human beings living together creates a lot of poop and had better find a way to get rid of their waste, but this does not create for the one million a collective right, just a necessity for waste disposal IF they desire healthy living conditions.

If you and I get in a boat to go fishing we become a defacto collective of two. Neither one of us gains any rights nor looses any rights. We do not gain any special rights just because we are two people in a boat.

By default we may create a communist or socialist government in the boat by simply sharing what we have. This would never be officially said of course - it would just happen. You bring the soda pop and I'll make sandwiches. You pay for the fishing licenses and I'll pay for the gas. From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs, as it were. Nowhere in here do we gain any special privilege or rights just because we are a collective of two (2) in a boat.

Does this clarify?

Regards,

Doug

Wonderfully said.

I tried to come up with a better way of saying what you said, and (at 1:40 in the morning) I couldn't do it.

 

[J_Wales]

As individuals, we are endowed by our Creator with rights.

As individuals, we can grant groups (such as a government) certain powers. However, groups do not have rights. Rights belong only to individuals.

Too often folks ask, "Why isn't the government doing more in this field?" or "Why is the government not doing this in that field?" when the question should be "Why is the government out of its damn fence and in any of these fields?"

The debate over homosexual marriage is an interesting one.

Some are claiming that the government must grant the right for homosexuals to marry. But it is not the government's to grant.

Others claim that the government discriminates against some by providing certain benefits to those in a traditional marriage. I think there is some truth in this.

I would say the bigger question is why government is involved in marriage (any marriage) at all.

Private contracts could be used to govern agreements between individuals. Inequities in the income tax code could be resolved by scrapping the current regime and adopting the Fair Tax.

I don't look for this approach to be embraced anytime soon. Progressives and statists are not about to give up a club they can use to beat individuals into conforming to a desired behavior.

Further, there are a good number of blind, bleating sheep that are happy to comply with the club as long as the troughs are filled for them.

 

[Pocketman]

In a recent case involving the 2nd Amendment Justice Antonin Scalia in writing for the majority in District of Columbia v. Heller stated “Nowhere else in the Constitution does a ‘right’ attributed to ‘the people’ refer to anything other than an individual right.”

There is no such thing as "collective rights." By it's very name it must mean that sometimes the collective has a "right" that might conflict with an individual right. Collectives only have power, not rights. When a collective power interferes with an individual right, the collective must demonstrate a compelling reason to exercise that power.

As Libertarian01 so eloquently stated, "men are ... endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights"

Is it just me, or does the above conflict with the 2010 SCOTUS decision involving corporate political campaign? Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority: “If the First Amendment has any force it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.” This decision was surprising to many largely because it granted what appears to be collective 1st Amendment rights.

 

[ATOMonkey]

I belive Justice Kennedy was right in saying that Congress is prohibited by the Constitution from passing any law regarding speech, be it collective or individual. I do not think that is the same thing as granting a collective right.

As it's been stated earlier, collective "rights" as they were are more accurately collective powers that would not exist in the absense of government.

 

[Stschil]

I would have to agree with ATO. In that case, the People had the right to political speech as individuals not as a collective. The fact that they came together collectively did not activate that right. Also, keep in mind the tenants of Free Assembly that are enumerated within the 1st Amendment as well. Though that portion did not seem to be specifically addressed in the excerp of the majority opinion, I hold that it certainly added weight to that opinion.

 

[Westside]

There is no such thing as "collective rights." By it's very name it must mean that sometimes the collective has a "right" that might conflict with an individual right. Collectives only have power, not rights. When a collective power interferes with an individual right, the collective must demonstrate a compelling reason to exercise that power.

Here's how the gay marriage issue can be resolved. "Marriage," however you decide to define that is something I think the government should not be involved with.

Let's deal with this under contract law. I should be able to sign a contract with whom I wish, for anything I wish. Others shouldn't have to recognize that contract - whether it's a gay marriage contract or a heterosexual marriage contract.

So, if I have an apartment, I should be able to exclude homosexual married couples, non-married couples, or whomever from renting there - after all, I own the apartment. Also, I might have an apartment where I don't allow heteroesexual couples to live - that should also be okay.

Let freedom ring.

Finally someone who looks at it like I do. It's a contract not a relationship. Two human beings can have the same relationship regardless of the "Marital Status" and if you choose to only serve only homosexual, only heterosexuals, or only singles at your business that is your choice.

 

[Bill of Rights]

The “equal protection clause" in the U.S. Constitution 14th Amendment “…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

In a recent case involving the 2nd Amendment Justice Antonin Scalia in writing for the majority in District of Columbia v. Heller stated “Nowhere else in the Constitution does a ‘right’ attributed to ‘the people’ refer to anything other than an individual right.”

The subject of “gay rights” came up in another thread. It’s my thought that if a gay man is prohibited from marrying another man, how is it discriminatory if a heterosexual man is also subject to the same prohibition? In this example, the right to marry is being extended to two persons (of the same sex) rather than to each individually. This is only an example. This post is NOT about gay marriage, but rather to raise the question of whether Constitutional rights for individuals extend to groups?

The right is not inherent to the couple. The right to marry (in the religious sense) or to enter into a contract (that the law calls "marriage") is solely that of the individual. Now... two individuals must agree that they wish to do either and/or both of those before they can happen, but the question, as I see it, is, "Does government have the authority and power to define who is allowed to enter into a legal contract with whom, and if so, by what justification does it have that power and authority?" The answer is yes, that government does have the power and authority to define who may enter into contracts with whom, as proven by the age of majority: One must be of age prior to entering into a legal contract. The reason is that, to protect minors whose judgment may not be fully matured, we prevent them from being taken advantage of by adults who would do so.

At one time miscegenation laws prevented people of different races from marrying. I don't know the reason those laws no longer exist, but I'm glad they're gone. This is just another iteration, IMHO, of miscegenation laws, just applied to a different group for a restatement of the same reason in different terms: They're not just like us, so we must persecute and restrict them because we are greater in number.
Like the former type, I will be glad when these laws are gone. You want to defend marriage, start by making your own about respecting your spouse. The only person you can rightfully control is yourself. When you have your own house in order, you can offer assistance to others in the form of a good example to follow. You can't, however, beat them over the head with a stick if they choose not to follow your example.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[mrjarrell]

At one time miscegenation laws prevented people of different races from marrying. I don't know the reason those laws no longer exist, but I'm glad they're gone.

They're gone because of legal cases like Loving v. Virginia, which overturned anti-miscegenation laws and made inter-racial marriage legal. It has taken many, many more years to make it socially acceptable, (especially to certain religious sects). Anyone who knows the case can easily see that it logically applies to same sex marriage, as well. It just hasn't reached SCOTUS yet, (altho it will sometime soon with the California Prop 8 case headed that way).

 

[spencer rifle]

I and some legal authorities do not agree that the government has no interest in marriage and its results on society.

"In light of the fundamental nature of procreation, and the importance placed on it by the Supreme Court, safeguarding an environment most conducive to the stable propagation and continuance of the human race is a legitimate government interest."

— Maryland Court of Appeals, Frank Conaway, et al. v. Gitanjali Deane, et al.

Scientific studies continue to prove that married heterosexual arrangements consistently provide most conducive and stable for raising future taxpayers. That being said, there are a number of less-than-optimal arranagements (divorce, single parenthood, some blended families) currently in use that are not regulated or prohibited by the government, which may be no worse than gay marriage. When the government usually did not regulate such arrangements in the past, society certainly did.

 

[dross]

As Libertarian01 so eloquently stated, "men are ... endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights"

Is it just me, or does the above conflict with the 2010 SCOTUS decision involving corporate political campaign? Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority: “If the First Amendment has any force it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.” This decision was surprising to many largely because it granted what appears to be collective 1st Amendment rights.

The right for me to associate is not a collective right, it's an individual right. I know it's easy to get wrapped around the axle on this, but follow me here.

As an individual, I have a RIGHT to join a group. All the other individuals in the group have a right to join that group. The fact that there are more than one of us in the group doesn't change the rights to group rights or collective rights. It's all individual rights.

Here's an example of collective rights (which again, is something that cannot exist):

In some places (maybe all, I don't know) it's difficult to adopt across racial lines. Some of the reasoning given for this is that it weakens the culture from where the baby comes from to not raise the child in that culture. In this argument, the baby's INDIVIDUAL needs are outweighed by his culture's collective need to not have their culture diluted.

In fact, this isn't a collective right, it's an exercise of collective power. Only individuals have rights.

 

[dross]

I and some legal authorities do not agree that the government has no interest in marriage and its results on society.

"In light of the fundamental nature of procreation, and the importance placed on it by the Supreme Court, safeguarding an environment most conducive to the stable propagation and continuance of the human race is a legitimate government interest."

— Maryland Court of Appeals, Frank Conaway, et al. v. Gitanjali Deane, et al.

Scientific studies continue to prove that married heterosexual arrangements consistently provide most conducive and stable for raising future taxpayers. That being said, there are a number of less-than-optimal arranagements (divorce, single parenthood, some blended families) currently in use that are not regulated or prohibited by the government, which may be no worse than gay marriage. When the government usually did not regulate such arrangements in the past, society certainly did.

The problem with this kind of reasoning is that you are giving the government too much power, IMO. If you concede the governtment has a legitimate interest in regulating certain types of marriage, you also concede that as the future political landscape changes, the government may limit other kinds of marriage that we now regard as acceptable.

This is the problem with many of these types of arguments made by social conservatives. They are just assuming that conceding the principle will never come back to harm them. But once the principle is conceded, you're now in the realm of the political, not the realm of rights. And we don't know what the political landscape will be.

You would agree then that there is no inherent right for an interracial couple to marry? It's just that the government has decided that's okay, but it may legitimately decide tomorrow that it is not okay, correct?

 

[redneckmedic]

threadjack

I wish the religious masses whom ever where ever and whatever God they serve would turn their energy from homosexual marriage/life styles and focus all of it and the resources devoted there to; to divorce and single parent familys.... this is an area where this country is truly being destroyed from the inside out.

/threadjack