Are you talking about rights in the legal sense or in the moral sense? Objectivists view rights in the moral sense. Of course governments can do anything they please if they have enough force behind them. This does not mean that they have the moral right to do so, even if elected. As Ayn Rand put it, "A 'right' is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. . . for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights."

Interesting. My first impression; Both sides in that case seemed to refer to rights as if they were granted by the government. Either the State or the Federal but not belonging to the individual. Might have to get back to you on this one.

Wait, wait wait... I don't have a right to a big screen TV? What the heck? :)

" State can do whatever its people want it to provided the people of that State voted for it.”

That is verbatim from two lawyers I've known for many years. Referendums and laws can be passed at the state an local level and they can be thoroughly unconstitutional. Those laws/referendums can be overturned, repealed, or upheld. I never said I cared for it, but that is reality AND a right of the people of that State or Town.

Thank you. Here is my perspective.

Regarding immigration, I don’t think it would become a major issue in an Objectivist nation. Anyone coming into such a country could do so only with permission of the owner of the property that he or she landed on. Thereafter, the immigrant could only travel on or otherwise use this property in a manner that was acceptable to the property owner. The same would apply to any other private property accessed by the immigrant. Under such circumstances, mass immigration would likely not exist and thus would not become a huge political and social issue.

Regarding religion, I don’t make that big a deal out of it, although I am not religious.

Where I disagree with you is on the issue of society vs. individual rights, which is a core concept among Objectivists. Specifically I disagree with your statement that “A State can do whatever its people want it to provided the people of that State voted for it.” To me this means that the federal government has no legal or moral right to intervene to protect the rights of citizens from abuses by elected state or local governments. A central element of Ayn Rand's political philosophy is that the primary purpose of government is to protect individual rights. This includes all levels of government, federal, state and local.

In this context inalienable means exactly what I wrote...to the minds that each took a point: 3 of you, enjoy this lesson.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Not sure why any of the 3 of you took a point, unless, of course, it had nothing to do with lack of comprehension and everything to do with who dared to say it here (me). If the FF's, Jefferson-Franklin-Adams-Sherman-Livingston, did not mean God (cap C) or at the very least a higher power than men, when what did they mean?

One of the point takers I expected, the other two...just embarrassing.

I respect it and subscribe to the many areas where it coincides with my vision of what America and Americans should be. That said, she is wrong in certain areas, and thoroughly impractical, as it relates to me, my philosophy in life, and this country as I see it, which is all well and good - I CAN live with this.

What I can't stand is the closed minded intolerance here when any mentions anything related to faith or religion even in passing. I don't proselytize, never have and have no desire to start, but the reality is a great many things relate ideas put forth by people with faith/religion or at least used faith/religion to craft their documents. In discussion those things are worth mentioning, particularly when it comes to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and should not be ridiculed.Further, the deconstructive notion by friends here who insist on mans right to travel as I endure the onslaught of illegal aliens in my state that have harmed many people I know, and my sister most severely. As-if the individual right to travel trumps private property. If it does, there is no private ownership, no borders, and no country - this is loathsome.

That's my take. I'm a Constitutional Conservative who respects Ayn Rand as a visionary (as it says in my profile). This has never been a secret and I openly say this whenever a perceived conflict arises.

My mention of an expanded interpretation of the 14th Amendment refers to the Supreme Court decision handed down in the Slaughterhouse Cases.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaught...

The debate there is that the 14th was now construed to apply the Bill of Rights to apply to the States sovereign powers and not just to the federal government. Prior to Slaughterhouse it was understood that the federal Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government.

As mentioned in the article Slaughterhouse extended this purview to citizens of States versus the Rights recognized to citizens with the Bill of Rights as a United States citizen. The argument is that this renders meaningless the Bill of Rights in each States Constitution for the respective states citizens. Many see this as a huge overreach based upon an erroneous interpretation of the Civil War Amendments. In similar fashion that the Supreme Court declared themselves the ultimate arbiter of Constitutionality in the Marbury case. And these expansions have just been built upon well into the 20th Century - and now the 21st.

I did not mess with your point score and don't know who did. To repeat my question, what exactly is your overall opinion of Ayn Rand's philosophy?

Haha! The Bill of No Rights.

I like it.

I've been getting slammed with the right to travel by Objectivists here lately, with regard to illegal immigration..hence coveted, whether she intended it so or not. Even so, you took a point for making a valid assertion about society and private property??

This is the first I've heard of a "coveted Randian Right to Travel". I'm not exactly sure what you mean, aside from the fact that I respect the laws against trespassing. What exactly is your overall opinion of Ayn Rand's philosophy?

What you are saying, even though you are trying not to, is that two people who have different body parts have different rights and therefore are to be treated differently. There's a word for that. Hold on. Oh yeah! Discrimination, that's it! And it's perfectly fine as long as you are NOT Working For The Government.

The Supreme Court did not have to make a law. And the right existed long before this or any other supreme court did and Scalia, who is usually fairly rational, would put that right up for a democratic vote, merely on the basis of "we've always done it that way". (paraphrasing, of course)

The Kentucky law requiring people to ask permission, and the County Clerk to issue, licenses for marriage already existed. The Supreme Court, in accordance with the 14th amendment, invalidated the part where the state of Kentucky allowed itself and its angry mob of citizens to violate, repeat, violate those rights that already existed on the basis of sexual orientation.

Oddly enough no comments on Paul's stance AND I still have a point here (hurry EWV you missed one.)..curious.

I think the Supreme Court was wrong to overrule
Kentucky's law. Because I believe it is not part of
the government's function to put its stamp of ap-
proval on unnatural practices. In the first place, the
reason for the State's being involved in marriage in the first place is that children can result from
such a union, and children need to be raised in
some sort of structured environment, cared for,
and not running the streets committing crimes
or being themselves the victims of crime. (Of
course, not all heterosexual couples will be fer-
tile, especially those of advanced age, but that
at least establishes what is natural). Of course,
consenting adults should be able to do what they
want in their own homes, without the State
breaking in on them, but that does not mean the
State is obligated to give them a stamp of ap-
proval.--As a matter of being humane, perhaps
there should be a provision in law for someone
to be able to designate anyone he wishes as his
next-of-kin, provided no third party's right is vio-
lated (such as a spouse's, or minor child's)--
for insurance purposes, or hospital visitation,
or inheritance. But the law should not call it
marriage.--
That said, I do not understand why Kim Da-
vis was put in jail instead of fired. And, the
Court having ruled, I think she was very foolish
to imagine she could get away with it. What if
a black man and a white woman had gone for a
marriage license, and some bigot behind the
counter had said, "I believe God never meant
for white to mix with colored, and I'm not going
to give you a license."? (By the way, I am total-
ly in favor of the Court's overturning the anti-
miscegnation statute in Loving vs. Virginia,
1967). Why didn't she simply resign?

+1

The hypocrisy displayed by most of her supporters is deafening and sickening. They might not cut off your head or burn you to death; but they would probably tell you they 'love you' and hope you get 'better' while turning the key to your cell because you violated one of "God's laws".

Religion in government does not make or maintain a free society; it results in a creeping tyranny that constantly erodes an individual's rights.

Sheesh, not everyone is like you or me. Some see those things as in their own self interest because they want to or see nothing wrong with doing them. You still see the matter on a philosophical level and, despite living in a society as a member, choose to ignore the base need for the social structure of society.

The coveted Randian Right to Travel is voluntarily restricted to societies private property laws. Do you not see this?

"Permission" to enter into a contract is also an issue. If a government requires a "license" as a precondition of recognizing a contract, the 14th Amendment's "equal protection" clause comes into play.

I don't do any of those things because it would violate the individual rights of other people, not because it's for "the good of the whole (society)." The only thing I owe "society" is respect for the individual rights of other people living within it.

"So you are going to assert that a man is 'reasonably comparable' to a woman in all respects?" Please critique what I actually said rather than claiming I asserted something that I didn't assert. I said "No two situations are identical, the question is whether they are reasonably comparable." Situations, not people. Situation 1: Non-gay couples may get married and be eligible for spousal Social Security benefits. Situation 2: Gay couples may not get married and may not become eligible for spousal Social Security benefits. What does sexual orientation (or gender, for that matter) have to do with whether one should or should not be eligible for this particular government "benefit"? Nothing.

Prove that marriage existed before religion. Good luck with that. You have to go back a LOT farther than the Greeks.

"No adult should have to obtain permission for a contract, but a marriage contract must be acknowledged as meeting the criteria necessary for its legal and financial implications, including tax rules."

I agree. However, the enforcement of the contract is what is at issue here. I can enter into a contract with a mob hitman to knock off my nosy neighbor, but if the hitman turns out to be an FBI informant, I can't enjoin the fulfillment (or specific performance) of that contract since it is an unrecognized and therefore unenforceable contract.

There is also nothing stopping the legislatures from separately identifying an awarding privileges to same-sex couples without declaring them marriages. That the court system decided to take on and issue via judicial fiat what the people had repeatedly and emphatically voted against in referendum after referendum says much about the current state of our legal system.

What further concerns me about this whole brouhaha is that we will see a day in the near future when religious organizations are taken to court for refusing to perform and recognize homosexual unions as "marriages". And when that happens, we will see an undeniable abridgement of First Amendment rights by the minority over the majority. This land will cease to be a free nation, and tyranny will ensue. And when we lose the right to associate with similar thinkers, our entire nation - and by extension the whole world - will lose its best source of free thought.

So you are going to assert that a man is "reasonably comparable" to a woman in all respects? That is what one must argue to assert equality of circumstances. If you want to do that, you are welcome to. I choose to see the inherent differences - not the least of which is physiological - for what they are: differences that declare the man and woman complementary but certainly not interchangeable.

One more thing I would point out - the Supreme Court has no legal authority to make law. All they have the authority to do is to declare certain laws unConstitutional. Their rulings, however, do not equate to new laws. Until the Kentucky Legislature takes up the issue, there is still no law instructing the County Clerk to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals. This is not the Clerk's fault. That many Clerks chose to consider the Supreme Court ruling the new law of the land is an errant interpretation of legal authority. What should have happened was that the State should have stopped issuing all marriage licenses until a new law was put in place - which ironically is exactly what this Clerk did (she was sued not only by two homosexual couples, but by a heterosexual couple as well).

It would be discrimination and it would be a violation of the Equal Protection clause - if the circumstances were the same. But are you really going to try to claim that there is no difference between a man and a woman? That is what one must hold in order to equate a heterosexual union with a homosexual one. Nothing else is relevant until that matter is decided.

Yes, the Supreme Court invented a new right out of whole cloth (see Justice Scalia's dissent). And they in essence ignored reality and asserted that there is no difference between the sexes. All that aside, however, the Supreme Court does not make law. Only a Legislature is empowered to do that. So until the Kentucky Legislature takes up the matter, there is nothing to be done. The only thing the Supreme Court could legally do was declare the existing law unConstitutional, but it can not replace law.

untrue. You allow yourself to be restricted for the good of the whole (society). You don't drink and drive, you don't kill someone because your angry at them, you don't drive through red lights, you don't steal, you don't rape/molest....it goes on and on. Perhaps we're talking about different things...