What's in a word?

INalienable or UNalienable?

Does it matter?

I suggest that understanding the difference makes all the difference.

The context of language at any point in history is of primary importance when trying to understand the ramification of a word.

There was a debate about the two words, as originally written by Jefferson, who at first used the word inalienable to describe the rights that naturally flow from a humans' mere existence. His choice was based on his personal beliefs, which while not atheistic, precluded a belief in a personal creator from whom natural rights flowed. Today he'd be called agnostic. Some would argue that Jefferson original word should be used, but that is sophistry, and a moot point, the truth is the word unalienable was a definite choice that was ratified unanimously at the time and not subject to revision without a Constitutional amendment.

The fact is that, Jefferson and John Adams both understood that there is a distinct difference between what Jefferson was saying and the intent of the Declaration of Independence. INalienable rights come from the government and pertain to civil rights. UNalienable rights come from a higher source of life that cannot be given or taken away. To be clear Adams viewpoint won the day and UNalienable was used and unanimously adopted by the Framers.

Why is that important? It establishes intent. It tells us that the framers looked at every word that went into the Declaration and the meaning of every word held significant ramifications (consequences) and carried great weight.

They did not say anything they did not intend and they were precise to a fault. That is why its important—they were writing this document for us, their progeny.

As understood by the framers at that time.

INalienable is a right that can be given or taken away it can be bought or sold, in those times, it literally meant, property that could be placed in (a) lien (offered as security). It was transitory. It was the argument used by pro slavery advocates, to buy and sell African-Americans, who were considered property, sub-human, a class apart from the protection, set forth in the Declaration and therefore not subject to the Human Rights.

UNalienable is a right that cannot be taken away. It was a right that was and is un (a) lien able (it was fixed and unassailable). It was irrevocable, never to be taken away.

Given the fact that this Declaration was a condemnation of the monarchy's right to grant or not grant rights to his subjects the framers wanted to make sure that it was crystal clear that they rejected that presumption outright and choose UNalienable to ensure that distinction.

Today we act as though the two words are synonymous but within the context of history these two words had significant and different ramifications. To be sure there is a deliberate attempt by the far right to obscure the difference, which makes it even more important to preserve the Declaration as it was written.

UNalienable rights refers to individual human rights that cannot be abridged.

Human rights are universal rights, or status, regardless of legal jurisdiction or other localizing factors, such as ethnicity, nationality, and sex—that by their nature cannot be taken away, violated, or transferred from one person to another. They are considered more fundamental than INalienable rights, such as rights in a specific piece of property.

The debate over Prop 8 is about that very distinction.

Is the right to marry who you please, a human right (unalienable) guaranteed by the Declaration—or—as the proponents of Prop 8 argue, is it a civil right (inalienable) like issuing a drivers license to be regulated by the state?

The Declaration says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain UNalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men."

It cannot be argued too strongly that, marriage is certainly, a basic part of life that promotes individual happiness, and we are at liberty to pursue and marry anyone that makes us happy. What heterosexual would tolerate being told, you cannot marry at all, or you cannot marry that person.

The states sole function in any marriage union is to witness the legal contractual aspects of the marriage for the purpose of real property that becomes part of that contract. Their only other restrictions apply the to age, and familial ties (cousins, siblings etc.) Which could also easily apply to homosexual unions. (period) They cannot bar the human rights of an entire class of citizens. It is true that we have both inalienable and unalienable rights which is confusing to us today, but what is not confusing is that the government is instituted to secure our human rights and not to abridge them.

It is indeed ironic that the radical, religious, far right are using—Thomas Jefferson's, an avowed agnostics', original word—INalienable, to prove their point. And once again shines the bright light of hypocrisy on their very UNchristian viewpoints. Ken Starr cannot be allowed to confuse this issue of fundamental Constitutional Human Rights with Civil Rights, and the difference between UNalienable and INalienable.

What's in a word?

The difference between—Life, Liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the repression of a whole class of citizens.

A Time For Change

We live our lives in a narrow context of personal history, family, friends, marriage, births, deaths, but, some events bring us out of ourselves and demand that we become aware of the broader picture of history. Such an event occurred Tuesday June 3rd 2008, when an African American man was nominated to become the Democratic, presidential standard bearer. His Name is Barack Obama. His mantra has been Change You Can Believe In.

The nay sayers and so called conservative right wing, belittle change as rhetoric without substance, ignoring the fact that from the foundation of this nation, freedom demanded change and that, that change, was forged in the crucible of revolution. What is revolution, but, the epitome of change?

When oppressed by a monarch the founders sought a change in the status quo and through violent change if necessary. Their enlightened manifesto declared that all men were created equal, and that they could, and should throw off the shackles that bound them to that old order, in an age where kings and tyrants were the only form of government men had known. But, not all were inspired and the Tories with their conservative mind set sought to cling to the past to preserve their privileged life style. They were defeated.

When those ideals expressed by the founders fell short this nation went to war—at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives—with itself to seek a change that extended that expression of freedom even further, that civil war led to the emancipation of blacks.

We have a constitution that calls us to change over and over again, and as Lincoln put it, "to listen to the better angels of our nature". The Constitution is our beacon, a guide and conscience, a moral compass that always points towards freedom and equality no matter the cost.

We as a nation continuously call on the world join us to change and are willing to send our young men and women to force change as we did in World War Two. We set Europe on a democratic course that has seen Europe change from despots and monarchies to democracies. All the while we maintained segregated black army units under the Jim Crow laws white legislatures had enacted after the Civil War.

In my lifetime I saw a small petite woman named Rosa Parks refuse to give up her seat, and force a change in the fundamental rights of blacks. She began a tidal wave of change that culminated in the final death of the oppressive Jim Crow laws that continued to subjugate blacks in this country for over one hundred years after blacks had been emancipated by Abraham Lincoln.

I saw a black man exhort a nation to share his dream to change its racist nature and embrace ethnic diversity so that a man was judge by the content of his character not the color of his skin. He was murdered by a conservative mind set that feared that change. The nation changed anyway. Lyndon Johnson signed an all encompassing Civil Rights bill.

I saw the youth of this nation demand change in the conduct and an end to the prosecution of an unjust war. A conservative mind set responded with tear gas, billy clubs and finally the murder of students at Kent State. Which brought about the very change they feared, the war came to an end, but, the communists did not take over the world.

Looking back through the prism of my personal history and the broader history of this nation I see change need not be feared, it needs to be embraced. The message of change resonates in our very souls as Americans.

History shows us that we have often fallen short of achieving the full promise of equality and freedom the founders intended, but, because we will not allow the flame of liberty to be extinguished by our fear, we pick ourselves up and advance its cause one change at a time. Freedom and equality are not static things that once written can be put on a shelf to be admired. They are ideas that must be written on our hearts and proclaimed by our words and brought to life through our actions. The world will once again take note of Americas' journey towards the fulfillment of freedom and equality for all.

As a 64 year old white male it may seem odd that I can identify with Michelle Obamas' statement of pride in her country, but, as a patriot I too, have never been more proud of my country and its promise, than at this time.