Scribd Logo
Fazer o upload

Bem-vindo(a) ao Scribd!

  • The U.S. Supreme Court On Gay Marriage: A Natural Right Deemed Fundamental Over Opposing Ideology

    Enviado por

    Dr. Skip Worden
    4 visualizações2 páginas
    On the day of the U.S. Supreme Court’s same-sex-marriage decision, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton lamented that "the United States Supreme Court again ignored the text and spirit of the Constitution to manufacture a right that simply does not exist. In so doing, the court weakened itself and weakened the rule of law, but did nothing to weaken our resolve to protect religious liberty and return to democratic self-government in the face of judicial activists attempting to tell us how to live." Is it not self-evident, however, that deniers of a right newly recognized would view it as manufactured in the sense of being artificial? Presumably the right of free speech is not artificial, even though it is laid out on parchment rather than a natural right sans governmental recognition. In recognizing same-sex marriage as a right under the U.S. Constitution, the high court followed in the tradition wherein rights presuppose government. Even so, the Court’s justification arguably implies that the right is natural in the fullest sense—that is, being valid even in the state of nature even if political, moral, or religious ideology objects under juridical garb.

    Título original

    The U.S. Supreme Court on Gay Marriage: A Natural Right Deemed Fundamental over Opposing Ideology

    Direitos autorais

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formatos disponíveis

    DOCX, PDF, TXT ou leia online no Scribd

    Você considera este documento útil?

    Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

    Denunciar este documento
    On the day of the U.S. Supreme Court’s same-sex-marriage decision, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton lamented that "the United States Supreme Court again ignored the text and spirit of the Constitution to manufacture a right that simply does not exist. In so doing, the court weakened itself and weakened the rule of law, but did nothing to weaken our resolve to protect religious liberty and return to democratic self-government in the face of judicial activists attempting to tell us how to live." Is it not self-evident, however, that deniers of a right newly recognized would view it as manufactured in the sense of being artificial? Presumably the right of free speech is not artificial, even though it is laid out on parchment rather than a natural right sans governmental recognition. In recognizing same-sex marriage as a right under the U.S. Constitution, the high court followed in the tradition wherein rights presuppose government. Even so, the Court’s justification arguably implies that the right is natural in the fullest sense—that is, being valid even in the state of nature even if political, moral, or religious ideology objects under juridical garb.

    Direitos autorais:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Baixe no formato DOCX, PDF, TXT ou leia online no Scribd
    Sinalizar o conteúdo como inadequado
    4 visualizações2 páginas

    The U.S. Supreme Court On Gay Marriage: A Natural Right Deemed Fundamental Over Opposing Ideology

    Enviado por

    Dr. Skip Worden
    On the day of the U.S. Supreme Court’s same-sex-marriage decision, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton lamented that "the United States Supreme Court again ignored the text and spirit of the Constitution to manufacture a right that simply does not exist. In so doing, the court weakened itself and weakened the rule of law, but did nothing to weaken our resolve to protect religious liberty and return to democratic self-government in the face of judicial activists attempting to tell us how to live." Is it not self-evident, however, that deniers of a right newly recognized would view it as manufactured in the sense of being artificial? Presumably the right of free speech is not artificial, even though it is laid out on parchment rather than a natural right sans governmental recognition. In recognizing same-sex marriage as a right under the U.S. Constitution, the high court followed in the tradition wherein rights presuppose government. Even so, the Court’s justification arguably implies that the right is natural in the fullest sense—that is, being valid even in the state of nature even if political, moral, or religious ideology objects under juridical garb.

    Direitos autorais:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Baixe no formato DOCX, PDF, TXT ou leia online no Scribd
    Sinalizar o conteúdo como inadequado
    de 2

    The U.S.

    Supreme Court on Gay Marriage: A Natural Right Deemed Fundamental


    over Opposing Ideology
    On the day of the U.S. Supreme Courts same-sex-marriage decision, Texas Attorney
    General Ken Paxton lamented that "the United States Supreme Court again ignored
    the text and spirit of the Constitution to manufacture a right that simply does not
    exist. In so doing, the court weakened itself and weakened the rule of law, but did
    nothing to weaken our resolve to protect religious liberty and return to democratic
    self-government in the face of judicial activists attempting to tell us how to live." 1 Is
    it not self-evident, however, that deniers of a right newly recognized would view it
    as manufactured in the sense of being artificial? Presumably the right of free speech
    is not artificial, even though it is laid out on parchment rather than a natural right
    sans governmental recognition. In recognizing same-sex marriage as a right under
    the U.S. Constitution, the high court followed in the tradition wherein rights
    presuppose government. Even so, the Courts justification arguably implies that the
    right is natural in the fullest sensethat is, being valid even in the state of nature
    even if political, moral, or religious ideology objects under juridical garb.
    The full essay is at Gay Marriage Decision.

    1 Ken Paxton, Opinion No. KP-0025, June 28, 2015.

    Você também pode gostar