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.

The Tyranny Of The Majority

The founders set the course of this Nation and it has wondered through its brief history with the steadiness of a drunken sailor. Lurching from the abomination of slavery to the bloody conflagration of the Civil War that ended it. From the shameful cloud of cruel genocide of the American Indians, from which it never emerged, to an uneasy détente to the belated an begrudged liberation of its women. From the tyranny of the Jim Crowe laws a legacy of the Civil War to the Civil rights Act of the 1960's.

Now once again a minority languishes in the grip of America's odious history of suppression. According to the self righteous right, Gays are less equal under law than other American's. So once again those without the slightest understanding of the founders intent, who wrap themselves in the flag and use it to deny the rights of others, let me say to you; NO. No you will not turn my country into an authoritarian theocracy. No you will not prevail, as long as there is one person that understands the true meaning of the Constitution we will fight you to the death. I am a real American patriot who loves my Country and will give my life to protect not only my rights but, the rights of every American. We are NOT A DOMA NATION. DOMA WILL NOT STAND. PROP 8 WILL NOT STAND.

Because, the Constitution of the United States is the Supreme Law of the country no State can pass a law that supersedes the Constitution, period. We fought a Civil War to establish that very point. Any law that violates an individual right is null even if the State or States in question passes a law that is direct violation of the Constitution. The word "marriage" is a semantic devised to deprive individual rights just like the Separate But Equal laws (Jim Crowe) that were passed after the Civil War to continue to deny the rights of blacks in the South. We settled that issue in the sixties and passed the Civil Rights Act that did away with those "laws." If the law or a law deprives anyone of an Unalienable Right it's a bad law and it will be challenged eventually and it will be struck down. Like it or not.

My question to you is, What do you gain when you deny someone else a right you claim for yourself? Certainly you must realize that in America everyone is equal under the law and that is the true American ideal. Freedom and equality under law. Without that America is just another rudderless ship-of-state adrift in the world and nothing very special. That was and is the true ideal that the founders shed their blood for; not some Rambo right wing fictionalized machismo bullshit.

By the way, originally "marriage" was a a contract that conveyed the woman in the union to the man as his property, she was his chattel, there was nothing "holy" about it, it was usually arranged to strengthen political alliances or to consolidate wealth. The woman had little or no say in the affair, it was strictly a business deal and frankly it has meant different things to different people, especially women, throughout history and the word "marriage", is no excuse to deny anyone's rights.

Would you really deny someone else the ability to make a legal contract that binds their life to someone they love? I understand that you may feel squeamish about the subject based on your personal beliefs, but how can you in good conscience be so petty as to strip another's rights to protect your personal idea of right and wrong.

That's why the founders wrote the Constitution so that we are not subject to the whims of others. This is not a debate that can be won it is a moot point, Prop 8 is unconstitutional. Its right wing sophistry to argue otherwise.

The Constitution Sucks, So Let's Ignore It

"Opponents of California's gay marriage ban
need to learn how democracy works,
Chuck Norris argues at TownHall.com.

Post-election Proposition 8 protesters are attacking churches for backing the ban and threatening boycotts, Norris writes, when they should be accepting the majority vote of their fellow Californians.

"Like it or not, it's the law now," the actor writes.
"The people have spoken." If democracy doesn't tip our direction, we don't swing to anarchy.

That would be like the Wild West, the resurrection of which
seems to be happening in these post-election protests.
- Chuck Norris

The utter ignorance of how the Constitution protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority is once again shown by the self righteous radical right in the persona of Chuck, "I'll Kick Your Liberal Ass," Norris. His anti Americanism is blatantly breath taking. His pronouncement leads me to ask, Has he ever read the Constitution or articles that explain that the Constitution was created to protect the rights of the individual not the rights of the majority? Apparently not!

To paraphrase Chevy Chase of SNL, "Chuck, You ignorant slut". I know your brain damage from taking all those kicks to the head have affected your ability to think, but the simple truth is that the Constitution does not allow the plurality to take away unalienable rights of the minority, which includes the right to form a legally binding union with another individual. Its none of the governments, societies, and certainly none of your F'in business. Read the "frickin" document.

Unalienable rights are god given and are not up to you or some misguided bunch of twisted christians to give or abrogate. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness includes the right to enter into a legal partnership with whomever you desire and those basic rights, are non-negoitable. Period. Your rights don't include the right to remove the rights of others except under the most dire and stringent of circumstances, such as a felon trying to buy a gun. Period. Your removal of the rights of others by a religiously motivated referendum, is not democracy in action, it is a mob action of the self-righteous, tantamount to a political lynching and will be the death of this democrat republic you profess to love, if it is allowed to stand.

That is precisely why the founders demanded that there was a separation of church and state, because, they had first hand experience with being persecuted by self righteous, over zealous religious fanatics, e.g. the Puritans who burned and drowned those they considered to be witches. They didn't want those kind of fanatics to be able to do that in this country.

It is incredible that the religious radical, far right, wraps itself in the flag and castigates others for their ignorance and lack of patriotism, while their own ignorance is so blatantly apparent. They neither know or understand the bible they are so fond of quoting nor the premise of the Constitution that embodies the rights of each individual granted by the very God they proclaim to love.

Chuck, the bible has a word for you and people like you! Hypocrite, as in:
Hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly how to remove the splinter from your brother's eye. —Matthew 7:5 "—

Commentary:
The Constitution of the United States is the Supreme Law of the country no State can pass a law that supersedes the Constitution, period. We fought a Civil War to establish that very point. Any law that violates an individual right is null even if the State or States in question passes a law that is direct violation of the Constitution. Marriage is a semantic devised to deprive individual rights just like the Separate But Equal laws (Jim Crowe) that were passed after the Civil War to continue to deny the rights of blacks in the South. We settled that issue in the sixties and passed the Civil Rights Act that did away with those "laws." If the law or a law deprives anyone of an Unalienable Right it's a bad law and it will be challenged eventually and it will be struck down. Like it or not.

My question to you is, What do you gain when you deny someone else a right you claim for yourself? Certainly you must realize that in America everyone is equal under the law and that is the true American ideal. Freedom and equality under law. Without that America is just another rudderless ship-of-state adrift in the world and nothing very special. That was and is the true ideal that the founders shed their blood for; not some Rambo right wing fictionalized machismo bullshit.

By the way, originally "marriage" was a a contract that conveyed the woman in the union to the man as his property, she was his chattel, there was nothing "holy" about it, it was usually arranged to strengthen political alliances or to consolidate wealth. The woman had little or no say in the affair, it was strictly a business deal and frankly it has meant different things to different people, especially women, throughout history and the word "marriage", is no excuse to deny anyone's rights.

Would you really deny someone else the ability to make a legal contract that binds their life to someone they love? I understand that you may feel squeamish about the subject based on your personal beliefs, but how can you in good conscience be so petty as to strip another's rights to protect your personal idea of right and wrong.

That's why the founders wrote the Constitution so that we are not subject to the whims of others. This is not a debate that can be won it is a moot point, Prop 8 is unconstitutional. Its right wing sophistry to argue otherwise.

© 2008 by Michael Weber