My point is that both due process and same-sex marriage questions are functional questions.
What function does marriage have in a given place and time? How does a decision to allow or not allow same-sex marriage play into that? Usually the "it's a human right" crowd skips over that first question, which is my reason for discussing it. But not believing that it is a globally applicable human right does not necessarily determine the issue in a specific culture such as our own.
The same exists for due process rights. The due process right exists to ensure that government can't arbitrarily screw with your life because they don't like you. They can't throw you in jail, take your stuff, or the like. The question is how much putting you on a no fly list affects rights which are functionally necessary in our society. For this I think you have to look at the most intrusive implications, not the least. My point is that same-sex marriage is a very different situation where the normal retirement plan is to retire with one's children than in a society such as ours (I am an American though I am in Indonesia, so "ours" refers to American) where we expect pensions to be the primary support for the elderly.
In other words, "you can't fly from Bozeman to Sea-Tac" is not a real problem. It might take a day longer, but you can take a bus. "You can't fly from Honolulu to San Francisco" has very different implications. A no-fly list can't be effective if it distinguishes between these, and quite frankly after 9/11 a the latter flight is more problematic than the former. We know that there is a right to travel internationally and between the States. There are States that a no-fly list makes inaccessible to travellers directly, so therefore it violates that basic right which is a necessity regarding our system of federalism. Moreover, because some states are rendered inaccessible to those on no-fly lists, this also violates the basic equality of the states.
So I think there are a lot of issues here, but I tend to want to see more to "it's a right" than "because I think that would be a good idea." I think rights must be functional, because otherwise they are mere articles of faith.
I'm not sure you just read my post; my point is not about marriage, my point only included reference to a specific objection that is often raised in discussions about marriage. The merits of the objection are not what I am referencing, only the obtuseness of its presentation. In this discussion/context, I am not concerned with the relative merits of gay marriage. I hope I have just made that clear.
Just forget I said it. I regret saying it and causing this OT tangent.
The presentation I think is underlying a more general problem.
The question is, what is a right? I think you have a point that most of the discussion on rights is based on people sitting on their butts thinking "wouldn't it be nice if..." or "I want..." or "I think it would be fair if...." I would then say that most of the discussion on both sides of most of these issues (telephone metadata scooped up in large-scale operations, no-fly lists as violating due process, same-sex marriage, and much more).
I agree that's unhealthy. I was trying to provide an alternative viewpoint that would allow for discussions.
What function does marriage have in a given place and time? How does a decision to allow or not allow same-sex marriage play into that? Usually the "it's a human right" crowd skips over that first question, which is my reason for discussing it. But not believing that it is a globally applicable human right does not necessarily determine the issue in a specific culture such as our own.
The same exists for due process rights. The due process right exists to ensure that government can't arbitrarily screw with your life because they don't like you. They can't throw you in jail, take your stuff, or the like. The question is how much putting you on a no fly list affects rights which are functionally necessary in our society. For this I think you have to look at the most intrusive implications, not the least. My point is that same-sex marriage is a very different situation where the normal retirement plan is to retire with one's children than in a society such as ours (I am an American though I am in Indonesia, so "ours" refers to American) where we expect pensions to be the primary support for the elderly.
In other words, "you can't fly from Bozeman to Sea-Tac" is not a real problem. It might take a day longer, but you can take a bus. "You can't fly from Honolulu to San Francisco" has very different implications. A no-fly list can't be effective if it distinguishes between these, and quite frankly after 9/11 a the latter flight is more problematic than the former. We know that there is a right to travel internationally and between the States. There are States that a no-fly list makes inaccessible to travellers directly, so therefore it violates that basic right which is a necessity regarding our system of federalism. Moreover, because some states are rendered inaccessible to those on no-fly lists, this also violates the basic equality of the states.
So I think there are a lot of issues here, but I tend to want to see more to "it's a right" than "because I think that would be a good idea." I think rights must be functional, because otherwise they are mere articles of faith.