“A court which yields to the popular will thereby licenses itself to practice despotism, for there can be no assurance that it will not on another occasion indulge its own will.”

I well remember the Bob Jones University case where there was nothing in the constitution or any written law on it. Chief Justice Warren Burger stated, "By popular public opinion" when he ruled against the university. An example of the Supreme Court passing laws on their own!

So Cal please tell us what is the "public opinion" concerning interracial dating. That was the issue that caused the University so much trouble. Was public opinion for it or against it. It would appear that freedom and liberty is on the side of dating whoever one wants to date regardless of "public opinion". And private individuals can have any opinion about they wish and I suggest that we do, but an institution which punishes folk for exercising their freedom, well is that a little bit like coercion or fascism. Was Bob Jones making institutional law on its own that violated citizens overriding rights to freedom and liberty? If Bob Jones philosophy had its way would it mean that other institutions, businesses and employers could bar individuals having interracial dates or marriages, thus a major slam dunk on Americans freedom?

Bob Jones University is a little bit too strict for my preferrences, but it is a private school and should be allowed to make it's own rules. If a student doesn't like the rules they are free to attend another school.

Waffler, you know I'm laughing while shaking my head, what happened to the majority is always right? cal, is here, absolutely correct. Courts, as a matter or rule, indulge their own will in assuring license and other despotisms. As is averse to current application, the above quote should be put in place. Also, the current process concerning the newest Supreme Court Justice nominee is just another example of the executive, legislature, and judicial yielding to the despotic practice of indulging its own will.

Private institutions should be able to make and enforce their own standards. And if those standards reduce the credibility of that institution it will suffer the scorn of public opinion in the free market.

100 stars - this was so blatantly demonstrated in the recent California Supreme Court Prop hate ruling. From the time of Christ there has been a realization that we each should be given equal rights and that a majority should have no power of those rights - from Christians killing non-believers, women not allowed to vote, blacks being segregated and used as slaves, the likes of Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh being allowed to use the media to spread hate and spew their foul minds over those who act on their behalf. What is the point of a civilized society if we "willy nilly' allow institutions, organizations, and religious groups, to flaunt with total disregard the law of nature and human rights. We did this with ADA and other acts so why do we suddenly stop - those rights if not practice by all aforementioned would be brought to justice. We must not choose what we as individuals and groups desire but what natural law dictates.

RBESRQ you do not sound like a defender of rights but an oppressor of them.

The issue with Bob Jones is only that because of their freedom deniying policies the IRS denied them non-profit status. Bob Jones recanted his rules and regualations and allowed his students the same rights as students anywhere.

For goodness sakes, this quote is about more than Bob Jones University -- talk about a distraction. RBESRQ, no one is "given equal rights" as you have said -- they aren't rights if someone "gives" them to you. We HAVE rights -- we have always had them, and to take them away is an act of violence and servitude. The whole 'marriage' thing is a bunch of hogwash. Two people can pledge themselves for life without anyone else's permission or a 'certificate' or 'license.' And there is nothing to stop them. Statutes written making voluntary acts of willing participants 'illegal' is again not within their jurisdiction, i.e. your body! What is not being said, is that those wishing for 'marriage laws' are merely wanting to receive benefits from government or corporations for those with 'legal' and 'licensed' marriages. Well, you can't have it both ways -- either you are responsible for your life or you are not. As for the hypocrisy of Waffler, well, majority rules unless he is not in the majority -- we figured that out a LONG time ago. We need to start making the distinction between rights and privileges. I do not need a marriage license nor would I even 'apply' for one because it is simply saying that you wish to be a ward of the state. In the old days it was the Church that laid claim to every marriage and baby, now it is the Church of the State that plays the same game -- and like those 'faithful' followers of the Catholic or Protestant churches, the perpetual government wards will insist that the rest of us 'get with the program,' too. The last thing government wards want is for other people to be free from the regulations they must follow to remain slaves.

Right On Archer

Marriage license and registration is for the purpose of determining property ownership and rights. A marriage is legal quite similar to a partnership. The personal spiritual side of is between two persons in private. The public property ownership part is the only thing "govt" or the public is interested in since unfortunately Judges sometimes must decide things. As far as Archer and Carlton they cannot even read the plain words of a quote and make sense of it, Archer reads Jefferson's quote where he says the government should not have more debt than it can pay off in 19 years and Archer says that it means that government cannot have debt. Carlton claims that the Constitution was written to extol our rights rather than to form a government. Just as in misery loves company it is not surprising to see Carlton and Archer patting each other on the back. I love to sit back on watch it.

Waffler -- uh, what? You make no sense (a license is a permit, not a contract to share equity), combine numerous misquotes (Jefferson never said what you have twisted his words to mean), attempt misdirection (the quote was about judges ruling according to law not public opinion), and simply just making stuff up (!!). I am not miserable -- I am free, and it takes an effort to remain so. I need no government licenses, no government permits, and no government subsidies. I do not waive my rights, nor have I made myself a ward of the state subject to the rules that apply to those that are. You are incapable of knowing the basic tenets of Liberty and the American Common Law which upholds it. Lick the hands of your master, Waffler, but do not expect the rest of us to do the same.

So my life is in the hands of those wishing to give it - give me a break. Don't speak in riddles. What is is. We have a RIGHT to life and no one has that right over us. Why do we hide behind words? speak from your heart and you will see the light. You say that we have no rights other than those given to us - what absolute codswallop - you may be right legally and legally speaking as show by the California Supreme Court, they don't give a dam about equal rights just their rights - lets grow-up and be civilized please...

Archer, when you learn that freedom needs no effort you will understand.

I will always remain free regardless of those wishing otherwise, regardless of those who think they have power over my rights. Even as a slave you are free but when you allow your master to have power over your Self then all is lost. The power of SELF is the true God all else is just smoke and mirrors. I strive to become one with SELF and when that happens my mortal existence is irrelevant. I do not agree with many Gurus on this subject, and I have read many, especially those that understand the power of SELF. We must try and get back to the basic of life "Natural Law" As Mike said "Natural Law" is irrevocable. Though Mike and I do diverge on its ownership - it may be semantics. I don't believe that God is responsible for Natural Law I think SELF is.

Words have the power to both destroy and heal. When words are both true and kind, they can change our world. - Buddha

RBESRQ, I am not sure if your comment is directed to me or Waffler. You say: "So my life is in the hands of those wishing to give it - give me a break." I am not saying that, quite the opposite -- I am in agreement that no one can "give" you the right to life. Natural born rights are just that, natural born rights -- you can say that they are from 'God' or the 'higher self' or the 'Universe' I do not care -- natural born is natural born. But from the context of POWER as opposed to 'rights,' the only rights you really have are those that you can exercise. Asserting that all humans have the right to Life and Liberty is fine until someone else with more power says otherwise. Granted, slaves have rights, but they cannot exercise them -- they are enslaved. If you want to keep from being enslaved, it will take an effort -- so Freedom is not easy, changing one's view to suit the conditions may be easy, but it does not change facts. Life is a liberating process -- we are all 'in development' and learn how to accept our current limits to power. So freedom requires responsibility, and its 'ease' is only directly proportional to one's level of enslavement or dependence. We can define SELF and GOD until the cows come home, and we can even come up with a definition of each that most might agree with -- but as you said, it is just words. SELF is just as corruptible a word as GOD -- just look at all the self-help gurus/cults that crop up around such notions. I am talking about personal power, collective power, and the responsibilities that come with it. As far as marriage goes, no one needs anyone else's permission or certification to love another, to commit to them, and to share everything together. As far as insurance companies or corporate benefit packages, well, it is up to those private entities what the terms ought to be. When I worked for Lotus in Cambridge, they offered same-sex couples the same benefits as married couples -- no law required. So quit the whining and live your life your way, and expect resistance. Freedom isn't easy -- I have to fight for it every day.

Archer, I am afraid again you have misunderstood my words. No one can take you freedom from you but yourself. And here lies the key, it needs no definition, no words, it is what it is, YOURSELF. I will also fight for the physical freedom of others through which they too have the power of SELF. There are many laws that apply to married couples that do not apply to same sex couples. I personally do not whine my whining is for the help and rights of others and to fight any injustice where I see it - stop being selfish and think of others they need your help - you are a good person and I believe a moral too so use your power for others and stop fighting for your own freedom it sound as though you already have it.