Who Owns Our Rights?

The religious claim that a God owns our rights (top-down). Secular opinions on rights essentially hold that they come from the people (bottom-up) in a social contract that fosters maximum human flourishing (link). The US Constitution is a secular document, with a clear separation of government and religion (link). 

Many conservatives claim that there are no rights not explicitly enumerated in the US Constitution, as can be seen in the recent Dobbs abortion ruling: unwritten rights should be recognized only if they were "deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition" and "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty". However, this approach effectively freezes an 18th- or 19th-century understanding of rights in place. The Obergefell case in 2015 not only made marriage equality the law of the land and transformed tradition's role in discerning unwritten rights but that the court rejected the idea that the rights inquiry could be “reduced to any formula.” It instead embraced an approach that “respects our history and learns from it without allowing the past alone to rule the present” (link). Essentially, the Originalistic view of the US Constitution (link) has been debunked.

Click on the link below for a brief video showing clearly that the 9th Amendment to the US Constitution (in the Bill of RIGHTS!) supports the claim that the federal government doesn’t own the rights that are not listed in the Constitution, instead, they belong to the people, thus supporting the precedence leading up to Roe v. Wade:

The Constitution and Marriage

Same-Sex Marriage: Where Is The Harm?

Why don't conservatives get behind all human rights? Besides explicitly contradicting the expanding knowledge from science, some directly contradict unsupported dogma from the religious. For example, contrary to the propaganda from them, there is no harm to individuals and society from same-sex couples entering into a marriage commitment. If you doubt this, check out the links below:

Public Health Implications of Same-Sex Marriage

Psychology's Case for Same-Sex Marriage

Same-sex marriage legalization associated with reduced antigay bias

Direct Effects of Legal Same-Sex Marriage in Massachusetts

5 Ways the Defense of Marriage Act Harms Same-Sex Couples and Their Children

How Same-Sex Marriage Can Ruin Civilisation (Satire)

There is no harm caused by same-sex parenting

The arguments against same-sex marriage are weak

Beware Of The Unholy Alliance

Imagine the difference in the USA's political scene if Evangelical Protestants and Conservative Catholics had not allied around abortion and the LGBTQ/Same-Sex Marriage issues. While the road to this strategic alliance has not always been smooth (link)(link)(link), there has been a "marriage-of-convenience" (link). These two radical religious blocks are essentially double the votes demographically of the "Nones."

Because of the above, progressives must get active and vocal about educating the rest of the US regarding the danger of these far-right religious dogmatists, especially the potential of legally overturning Roe v. Wade and Same-Sex Marriage laws. Talking points should include the long tradition of "Bodily Autonomy" (link)(link) and how science reveals the non-binary nature of sex/gender (link).

Pastry As Speech Is An Unprecedented Legal Claim

"In prior decisions, Colorado held that bakers could refuse to write anti-gay messages on cakes. In the case now before the Supreme Court, baker Jack Phillips refused even to discuss making a cake for a same-sex couple. Phillips did not object to writing particular words – he flatly objected to selling any cake for the occasion."

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article190063034.html#storylink=cpy

A great deal has been written about this case, however, this article looks specifically at the actions of the cake baker:

Pastry as speech? Where does it end?
- - -

Is Shedding Of So-Called "Family Values" Harmful?

The Religious Right laments the changing social landscape in the USA, which includes accepting of divorce, contraception, abortion and LGBT rights.  They see it as an attack on "Family Values" and "Religious Freedom."  What is the truth regarding the effects of these changes?   While it is true that the percentage of people married in the USA has been decreasing over the last several decades, what negative effects can the Religious Right point to?  Following are data showing societal trends in important categories:

Parental Sexual Orientation Has No Bearing On Children’s Well-being

"Surveying this astonishing breadth of research, Nathaniel Frank—director of the What We Know project and friend of Slate—concludes that 'the scientific debate over the politics of gay parenting is over, and equal treatment has won.' That triumph of scientific consensus was a long time in the making."

The Scientific Debate Over Same-Sex Parenting Is Over

A Reminder: The "Slippery Slope" Argument Is A Logical Fallacy

"The slippery slope argument is popular, but I reject it. The definition of marriage does change; that’s a simple fact of history. Instead of focusing on that, focus on the test that doesn’t change: does it cause harm?

Revisiting Dire Predictions of America After Obergefell

What Does It Take To Create Open-Mindedness?

The Limits of Open Mindedness in Debates on Same-Sex Marriage and Abortion