Oh, nice.

[sisyphusshrugged]

via Not Geniuses

So, at a debate over Same Sex Marriage last night here on campus, the President of the College Republican Federation of Montana made a rather specious, offensive comment. After the President of the College Dems said that only one amendment had ever been made to the Constitution to restrict rights (prohibition) and it has proven a horrible idea and needed to be repealed, Jake Eaton, the CR guy, said that the 13th Amendment, which prohibits slavery (for those of you who are unaware), was a limitation on his rights.

Comments

[kodi]

For the sake of reference, there ARE two provisions in the amendments that do create an absolute restriction on personal rights - the right to be elected President, having already served two terms; and the right to hold office, having already held office and subsequently rebelled against the United States.

(But if claiming that prohibition was the only one prompts people to implicitly compare state-sanctioned heterosexual marriage to slavery, that may be worth it in its own right.)

[notapipe.livejournal.com]

This sounds interesting, but unfortunetly, this is just not how the constitution was written up originally, nor how it was amended.

* Amendment XIII, Section 1: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Nor does the constitution hold that slaves are not persons. It doesn't mention slaves or slavery until the amendments and it refers to slaves as persons:

* I.1, on not restricting importation of slaves: "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person. "
* and IV.2: "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."
* and the three-fifths clause calls them "other persons": "...shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

You see, slaves were considered persons in the language of the constitution, but also property and not entitled to the rights of "Free persons". The 14th amendment comes closer to the "human rights" reasoning you're thinking of, but it only applies to persons, and doesn't explicitly say that certain classes are persons, but starts from this position to extend "citizenship".

It's true, though, if he could find something that wasn't considered a person, of which the ownership didn't legally constitute slavery, he could own it. Perhaps some artificial intelligence, for example. But before the 13th amenment he could constitutionally own persons. (Though legally he could not in Montana.)

[jmhm.livejournal.com]

FYI, i just deleted a few comments. I'm really not comfortable with debating whether this was an excusable statement. It wasn't.

[notapipe.livejournal.com]

I'm disappointed, but I guess it's your perogative. It's your blog/LJ, so you're entitled to take posistions and silence opposition when it makes you uncomfortable. I'm not partial to such a policy myself, but I understand.

Anyway, do you care if I put your response in my post? It's a good stylistic device when I'm too lazy to make my own bridge to copying down my reply to your reply (again, due to laziness, also, pride). Feel perfectly free to say so.

Feel free to screen this comment, it's mainly just to ask permission.

[jmhm.livejournal.com]

Well, as you saw, I was willing to address the subject of the accuracy of his statement, and if you'd like to discuss that please feel free, but I'm afraid that I'm not comfortable with endorsing even as far as discussion the suggestion that what he said was anything but a deliberate offense and an attempt to get attention by shocking his audience (which he clearly succeeded at) and seriously unfunny.

Again, I can see how (if your sense of humor leans that way) his audacity would amuse you, but only because what he said was so flagrantly unfunny. I myself find it seriously offensive, which I could live with (and as a woman often do). I think it's unfair to accept the offense on behalf of people whose humanity was just made a punchline.

I'm afraid that as far as that, I am willing to "stifle dissent."

But then, as you said, this is sort of my back yard.

[jmhm.livejournal.com]

Of course. If you want to take this up in your own journal, you can certainly quote me with my blessing.

[jmhm.livejournal.com]

not sure. You could ask over at Not Geniuses (I'm sure you wouldn't be the first)