How did it protect salves and women?
There's actually a very good parallel going on right now, where culturally, we didn't really recognize that the right needed protecting.
What's important to understand in this is what constitutes a natural right. It's pretty simple, it's any activity that is basically human that doesn't require the specific performance of another.
Humans talk, they express themselves, they ponder the existence of a supernatural being, and they even believe in them without proof. And humans, like all animals have the instinct to protect their physical well being from any threat. They will also defend their homes. If you look at the first three amendments to the bill of rights, those things are covered right there. There's something else though that makes individuals uniquely individual. And it is something that certainly would never have made it in the Constitution when it was written. Yup...you guessed it. Sexuality. Humans are sexual. And they have the right to express themselves sexually and have consenting relationships with other adult humans. And they have the right to do so with equal protection under the law. Now, that doesn't mean that gays have the right to marry. In fact, what it means is that the government has no right to endorse or deny any marriage. So....gay marriage will be the next amendment to the constitution. If it is done right it won't grant rigthts, it will protect the right that is already there and it will be based on equal protection under the law.
But.....the majority is against gay marriage or the concept of equal protection under the law for gay marriage. Does this mean that the right doesn't exist? In your democratic utopia, yeah, it does mean that the right to one's own sexuality isn't a right, it is something that is voted on. And when the majority says it's a right, then it's a right.
Since you are so big into respecting the democratic vote, I assume that you support the decision by the california voters who voted against gay marriage. Right? |
