IV
Perhaps recognizing that these cases do not actually involve liberty as it has been understood, the majority goes to great lengths to assert that its decision will advance the “dignity” of same-sex couples. Ante, at 3, 13, 26, 28.[8] The flaw in that reasoning, of course, is that the Constitution contains no “dignity” Clause, and even if it did, the government would be incapable of bestowing dignity.
Human dignity has long been understood in this country to be innate. When the Framers proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” they referred to a vision of mankind in which all humans are created in the image of God and therefore of inherent worth. That vision is the foundation upon which this Nation was built.
The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.
The majority’s musings are thus deeply misguided, but at least those musings can have no effect on the dignity of the persons the majority demeans. Its mischaracterization of the arguments presented by the States and their amici can have no effect on the dignity of those litigants. Its rejection of laws preserving the traditional definition of marriage can have no effect on the dignity of the people who voted for them. Its invalidation of those laws can have no effect on the dignity of the people who continue to adhere to the traditional definition of marriage. And its disdain for the understandings of liberty and dignity upon which this Nation was founded can have no effect on the dignity of Americans who continue to believe in them.
Dignity and respect are earned. They are not a right. The tools to earn them are a right: Speech, religion, press, laws applied equally, etc.
“dignity?” Can’t find that in the Constitution . . . Hell, I’m still looking for penumbra, privacy, and abortion, and now I gotta’ look for “dignity?”
The Methodist Church has just embraced the ‘deatb dignity’ crap.
Thomas is a brilliant man. And a brave one. He is one of the great one’s of our age. History will see his wisdom better than this greedy, amoral, self-serving, hedonistic generation.
The Supreme Court can’t adjudicate my respect for you.
A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO “DIGNITY”
Where?
The Supreme Court has opened a big can of something with it’s ,A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO (fill in the Blank)
Powerful words from Justice Thomas. Thanks for posting them.
Also, the homosexual lobby group in the Episcopal Church is called “Integrity”. In the Roman Catholic Church, it is called “Dignity”. I submit that they have neither dignity nor integrity.
I didn’t read past the headline.
If they are stating that (the headline) then we can pretty much make up any crap we want and call it a “right.”
Rights are granted from God, and/or Nature if you are not into God. The state cannot grant a right.
Does Lady Liberty have a right to dignity, Justice Kennedy? Cause you just held her down while the lesbians shoved a broomstick in her.
The main article from a gay marriage supporter actually argues against the dignity nonsense.