Basically, "consenting adults want to XXX, and you don't let them = limiting their freedom", unless you can show that XXX infringes on the freedoms of others.
And consenting adults are allowed "XXX", even if their relationship is not recognized by the government. They are current allowed "XXX" in the US.
No they can't "marry anyone they want", not without a marriage license. What are you talking about???
I explained in detail. I'll try to repeat with less words. The term "marriage" covers multiple things. The part that is the marriage license is not an action by the people getting married but a recognition by the state. You don't lose your freedom just because the state refuses to recognize or endorse your actions.
and is as mocking as telling a girl she can't get a university diploma to show a future employer but can attend the courses and PRETEND she has a diploma.
Maybe we should go with that example, or another example that illustrates the concept. It might help separate the logic of the situation from the emotion.
To set up the analogy. The girl still "went to college" ("got married"). She was admitted, took classes, got grades and transcripts, was educated, ect. If she is not given a diploma than she is being treated unfairly. But she is not having her freedom infringed on. The printing of, and awarding of the diploma is an action of the university not the student. If the government says that the university can't give young women diplomas than the government is infringing on the freedom of the university and also is deliberately causing the woman in question to be treated unfairly, but it is not infringing on the woman's freedom itself. If the university just decides not to give the diploma (and the government, including the courts either doesn't get involved at all or allows the denial), even though the woman passed all the required courses, followed all the rules, and met all the standards, then no one's freedom is being infringed on, although you still have an example of very unfair treatment.
The important principle is that your freedom is not infringed on by the lack of action of others, or by their lack of approval or recognition, or support for your actions or relationships. If they do nothing to you, they are not infringing on your freedom
Even if that thought of yours were a principle of law (which is not, by the way)
Its more a philosophical principle, or really just a definition of terms than something embodied in any specific law. If you use freedom to mean something that can be infringed on by lack of support or recognition of others than we are using to different terms when you use the word freedom.
would you not agree that a BAN of homosexual marriages could constitute as ACTION?
No. "A Ban of homosexual marriages", is sloppy inaccurate usage". The ban is on the recognition of the marriages, and the ban is the government limiting itself. It is not an action against those who would be married. Its a definition of how the government will use the term. Its a ban in the same sense that the government will not consider a polygamous relationship to be a marriage or even in the sense that it won't consider many other types of relationships to be marriages. Many people might find using the definition this way to be objectionable. They might even be able to get it changed. Maybe it should be changed, a reasonable argument for such a change can certainly be made, but that doesn't mean that not changing it is an infringement on freedom.
Do you consider the lack of recognition for polygamous marriages to be an infringement on freedom? You might respond that "the people involved can get married, but only to one person like everyone else", but then the response is simple, homosexual people can get married, but only to people of the opposite sex. How about a ban on incestual marriages. The lack of recognition of incestual marriages is not an infringement on freedom. The outlawing of consensual adult incest is an infringement on freedom but most people would consider it a justified one.
There is a difference between saying that something is unfair, or a bad idea, or unjustified, and saying it is an infringement on our freedom. A number of laws that really are infringements on our freedom are justified. Other laws that are not infringements on freedom are still unjustified, a bad idea, unfair ect. An argument can be made that the lack of recognition of homosexual relationships as marriages by the government falls in to this category.
Tim |
