http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=680
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=3503&var_recherche=human+rights+U.N.
The UNESCO committee’s rapporteur, Richard McKeon, anticipated another problem. Different understandings of the meanings of rights usually reflect divergent concepts of man and of society, which in turn cause those who hold those understandings to have different views of reality. Thus, McKeon correctly predicted that, down the road, "difficulties will be discovered in the suspicions, suggested by these differences, concerning the tangential uses that might be made of a declaration of human rights for the purpose of advancing special interests." That is a philosopher’s way of saying, "Watch out, this whole enterprise could be hijacked."
That seems right. The people who drew up of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were so confident in their conclusions—their Christian morality without the tommyrot—that they thought it unnecessary to agree about where those rights came from or what they meant. (“Yes, we agree about the rights,” Jacques Maritain said of their deliberations, “but on condition that no one asks why.”)
posted by Fitz @ 12:01 PM
7 Comments:
http://merecomments.typepad.com/merecomments/2005/10/and_if_not_o_ki.html
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
PG
Thanks for visiting us at the Opine Editorials
Since you seem to be writing a paper on the subject I thought I would make you aware of the recent Maryland decision concerning the claim that marriage is a violation of equal protection claims and sex discrimination under the constitution.
I. Claim of Sex-based Discrimination Under Article 46 of the Declaration of Rights
“Appellees assert that, because Family Law § 2-201 excludes same-sex couples from
marriage, the statute draws an impermissible classification on the basis of sex, in violation 13If Family Law § 2-201 discriminates o n the basis o f sex, as the Appellees ass ert, this Court would examine the statute with th e strictest of scrutiny.. To the contrary, the Majority recognizes that strict scrutiny should be applied when the ERA is implicated. But in order for strict scrutiny to be the approach standard, it must first be found that the statute discriminate s on the basis of sex. W e conclude that it does not.10 of Article 4 6 of the ERA. Specifically, Appellees reason that “[a] man who seeks to marry a woman can marry, but a woman who seeks to marry a woman cannot. Similarly, a woman who seeks to marry a m an can marry, but a man who seeks to marry a man cannot.” Thus, because Family Law § 2-201 allows opposite-sex couples to marry but, at the same time, necessarily prohibits same-sex couples from doing so, the statute “makes sex a factor in the enjoyment and the determination of one’s right to marry,” and is therefore subject to strict scrutiny.13”
Appellees’ argument, at first glance, is beguiling.
(page 9 -10)
Freedom's Orphans: Contemporary Liberalism and the Fate of American Children (New Forum Books)
by David L. Tubbs (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691122989/ref=wl_it_dp/104-2532615-3060764?ie=UTF8&coliid=I13MQZXRD2JGPY&colid=13NIL8R10EDZE
Haidt thesis concerning the five moral impulses; and the two (beehive & contractual) moral systems they have developed that are now in contention seems a lucid and useful one.
What strikes me as particularly important is the way the “beehive system” recognizes the moral veracity of the Harm and Fairness conceptions within the “contractual system”. At the same time however, the “contractual system” remains constitutionally incapable of recognizing the moral veracity of the Loyalty, Authority and Purity impulses contained within the deeper tapestry of the beehive system.
In this manner it becomes fair to characterize the “contractual system” as significantly less sophisticated intellectually that the beehive model. It is also fair to recognize that the “contractual system”, in as much as it seeks to deny (or is incapable of recognizing) what science & evolution find legitimate within mans moral impulses – is also the less humane syatem.
In support of this contention I offer (first) Yuval Levin quote that gets to hart of the matter when he (correctly) notes..
“So modern liberalism has sought to deny the significance of unchosen obligations, inventing for itself a creation myth by which all human relations result from an original (contractual) choice in some state of nature, which would make only chosen obligations legitimate ones. This has done a lot of good, but it doesn’t change the fact that some of our most important obligations—particularly those in the family—remain unchosen yet binding and essential.”
In support of that I would offer this from the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights
U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 16 declares the right to marry based on the traditional definition of marriage, and states that such a family is "the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."
Article 16
1.Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
2.Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
3.The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
http://volokh.com/posts/1190149576.shtml
People have missed an important connection:
Gay marriage litigation -- even where it's lost -- has helped lead to LEGISLATIVE increased partnership rights in other states, like Connecticut, New Hampshire, Washington State, Oregon, California, Hawaii .... This is cuz litigation forces the topic into the public debate in a huge way (which legislative efforts have totally failed to do). It puts the issue on center stage, which in the long term will only benefit gay rights. Plus, thanks to the marriage litigation, civil unions are now a "moderate" position. Before the litigation, those unions were considered just as radical.
The litigation has been hugely succesful in transforming the public debate and bringing us close to a day of full equality.
(And yeah, sure, most days now have DOMAs, so litigation has its backlash too, but those DOMA states were going to take years and years to recognize equal marriage rights anyway...and some day, in the distant future, they will. The litigation won't be to blame for the delay.).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Qdh0FvMiZQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rdymvOA5WI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKuJvYh6h9I&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG5u04Gbg0A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z3ygVhCZdk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uCB0j2J5ms
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yl99os5UC_4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5k0dOiCGtw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcFXnYnDVMA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qLyyPcqqAU
This is not on topic, and I'm not going to permit comments therefore. But nonetheless I know the readers of this site, both those who like this kind of thing and those who will be very opposed, are likely to be interested, so I'm posting this email from PFOX on these new video:
"Definition of “homophobia” by young Jewish man -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qLyyPcqqAU “I’m no Nazi, I’m a Jewish American, and I don’t believe people should be given special rights based on who they have sex with.”
A man in a wheelchair explains what “innate” and “immutable” mean --
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGTYllsaXY0“Sex is an option, but cerebral palsy isn’t.”
African-American male says being gay is not an ethnicity --
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-MFDod9Rkc“Our parents did not march with Dr. King so Tom and John could get married.”
Gay man assures straights not to be scared of gay marriage --
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-DLb8IMqIM
Dr. Robert Spitzer, a renowned psychiatrist who helped remove homosexuality as a disorder from the medical manual, is sympathetic to gay rights and maintains that some gays can change their sexual preference -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qdeoh_ruI0 Gay rights also includes the right of gays who want to explore their heterosexual potential. . ."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y6imyz-vNo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6k6xUVYoctI
If you go to any video on You Tube... in the box just right of the video, where it states the date added, you can copy and paste the 'url', but if you want to have the video play in the blog... just copy and paste the 'embedded' url, that starts with (<)object....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2cMue48pA4
NEW HAMPSHIRE DEMOCRATIC DEBATE SEPT 26, 2007 part 1
Democrats Answer Gay Question at Debate
Edwards, Obama and Clinton answer gay-related question at 9/26/07 Dem. debate. (more)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGo9Uun1rZ8
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video_log/
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/09/30/polygamy_remains_despite_conviction_of_sects_leader/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+National+News
Polygamy remains despite conviction of sect's leader
Observers say plural marriage has lengthy history
By Nicholas Riccardi, Los Angeles Times | September 30, 2007
Sexist' ban on brides' dads
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22470305-23272,00.html
From the Courier-Mail (Australia)
September 24, 2007 12:00am
http://mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2007/44a06.pdf
Post a Comment
<< Home