Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!caip!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!AI.AI.MIT.EDU!KFL From: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU Newsgroups: mod.politics Subject: Rights Message-ID: <12226107001.23.MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU> Date: Sun, 27-Jul-86 17:31:36 EDT Article-I.D.: RED.12226107001.23.MCGREW Posted: Sun Jul 27 17:31:36 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 27-Jul-86 21:13:43 EDT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: kfl@ai.ai.mit.edu Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 134 Approved: poli-sci@red.rutgers.edu Return-Path: Date: Sat, 5 Jul 86 14:08:05 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Rights To: Salamir%UMass.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU cc: KIN@AI.AI.MIT.EDU, KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU From: salamir%UMass.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA (Ron Lussier -- SalNet Hacker) homosexuals cannot be given special rights because historically, they have always been treated badly. Not exactly. The Supreme Court didn't say they COULDN'T be given special rights, but that they didn't HAVE TO be given special rights. This is true not becuase 'they have always been treated badly' but because it does not say in the constitution that you can't discriminate based on sexual preference. The things to do are: 1) Try to get the state law changed. The Supreme Court didn't say the law HAD to be there, merely that the Supreme Court had no authority to eliminate it. 2) Try to get a constitutional amendment. The Constitution is what the Court has to follow. The Court doesn't really have all that much power. If there was an amendment saying that people have to wear green hats on Tuesdays, the Court would have to live with that, they couldn't overrule it. Good thing this court was not around during the Lincoln era, eh? Well, slavery was perfectly legal where states did not have laws against it. Until the 13th amendment was added to the Constitution. And it really wasn't up to the Court. The Dred Scott decision is ridiculed today, but it was the only decision the Court could have come to at the time, given the Constitution as it existed. The Supreme Court does NOT have the power to eliminate BAD laws. It has the power to eliminate UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws. Not the same thing at all. Remember 'seperation of powers'. The Supreme Court does not run the country. We the people do. Write to your congresscritters about getting a gay rights amendment, if that is how you feel. Keith, what is this bullshit about liberals thinking that the government should subsidize homosexuality? What is that supposed to MEAN? Well, it seems nothing can simply be 'legal' anymore. Once it is legal the government has to pay for it at least part of the time. For instance taxpayers money is used to pay for hundreds of thousands of abortions each year. I'll bet that if marijuana was legalized tomorrow that government would soon be subsidizing marijuana growers, buying surplus marijuana, paying farmers not to grow marijuana, etc. Just as they are doing now with tobacco. I think the perception is that if gay sex were legalized, that there would be more of it, that there would be more AIDS, and that many of the people with AIDS would be given medical treatment at taxpayers expense. Understandably, taxpayers do not like this scenario. Nor do they like having to pay hundreds of millions of dollars a year for research into AIDS cure and prevention, when they perceive that gays 'caused' the disease and that 'innocent' people are now catching it. This is the same sort of reasoning that lead to the mandatory seatbelt law, and the mandatory motorcycle helmet law. If government is going to pay for medical care for helmetless motorcyclists, then surely it is a government interest that they wear the things. I symathize with this reasoning, but I think people are drawing the wrong conclusions. This is America, not some random European socialist despotism. The solution is not to make these behaviors illegal, but to make them 'at your own risk'. If you ride a motorcycle without a helmet, and you are injured, YOU pay for the medical care. If you catch AIDS, YOU pay for the medical care. I don't want to government to do anything but leave me alone. Same here. If I am being denied something because I'm gay, I expect my government to protect me as it would protect blacks, jews, or any other minority. There has been a pernicious trend towards enumeration of minorities. The idea apparently being that each identified minority must have explicit mention in the Constitution and in the state laws and in the EEOC rules. I have worked with EEOC and the recognized groups are 1) White 2) Hispanic 3) Black 4) Asian/ Pacific Islander 5) American Indian/Native Alaskan. The implication is that everyone is in exactly one of those categories, and that aside from those categories (and male vs female) it is ok to discriminate for any reason. You object that gays are not a recognized minority group. Well, the same is true of short people, tall people, ugly people, fat people, left handed people, crippled people, blind people, deaf people, old people, young people, Arab-americans (a relatively new form of discrimination), Jews, etc, etc... This is a nation of 240,000,000 minorities and each should be judged on his or her own merits, and not on membership in any minority. It bothers me when blacks object to 'dilution of the black vote'. The black race has no rights. The white race has no rights. Gay people as a group have no rights. Every INDIVIDUAL has rights, as do VOLUNTARY organizations of individuals. Nobody else and nothing else has any. Any other approach runs into serious problems when it conflicts with individual rights. What about an indian tribe? Does it have rights? The right to continue its culture? What does that mean? If a member of that tribe wishes to leave the tribe, does he have that right? Or does it conflict with the right of the tribe to continue its cultural existance? If a member of the tribe objects to being put to death for fornication (in accordance with tribal laws) does it violate the tribe's rights for him to demand a trial under United States laws? We have the same problem with 'state's rights'. Despite what I was saying above about the Supreme Court not having authority to overturn random bogus state laws, I do NOT belive in 'state's rights' in the traditional sense. The pre-1860 notion (at least in the South) was that the states get their power from the people of the state, and that the U.S. gets its power from the states. That the U.S. is in fact a voluntary organization of the states. Much anguish could have been avoided had it been more generally realized that involuntary organizations have no rights. The U.S. could not be a voluntary organization of the states because the states have no rights to join or leave any such organization. Only individuals and voluntary organizations of individuals (or of voluntary organizations, etc) do. The U.S. gets its power directly from the people, not from the states. The states get their power from the people, not from the U.S.. The division of power between the states and the U.S. government is spelled out in the Constitution. The Constitution can be changed, but until it is, people should realize that their dispute is often with their state, not with the Federal government or any of its agencies or courts. Has anyone noticed that we are slowly losing more and more of our rights.? Yes. ...Keith -------