Talk:Special rights/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Is there a citation for the Ralph Reed quote?

Also, I think it might be better to link to articles which fully cover legal protections in the United States and private discrimination or lack thereof, and move the material in the last two paragraphs there. -- Beland 08:05, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup! I added the Ralph Reed quote. It's quoted at [1]. I don't have a strong opinion about whether the last two paragraphs should be moved or not.

But I don't think the term "enumerated rights" is accurate, especially in the phrase "enumerate rights for sexual minorities". That would mean something like "Homosexual people have the right to. . ." which has never been proposed in legislation to my knowlege. These bills usually come in the form of "All citizens have the right to be free from discrimination based on [a bunch of factors]. . . and sexual orientation" or "No one shall deny housing to anyone because of their sexual orientation." Those aren't enumerated rights (it's a single right - to be free from discrimination - with an addition factor) and they certainly don't apply only to sexual minorities (they apply equally to sexual majorities). I think the phrase "laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation" is much more accurate.

Perhaps a good compromise would be this:

Special rights" is a political term used primarily by conservatives in the United States to refer to laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, or that are perceived as enumerating rights for sexual minorities (e.g. people of a particular sexual orientation).

Would this work for you? – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 14:53, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

You are exactly right. I changed the article as you suggest. Thanks for catching that! -- Beland 14:09, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"rights related to sexual orientation"

Is heterosexual marriage a "special right" by the definition currently in the article? ("laws that enumerate rights related to sexual orientation (e.g. prohibitions of discrimination based on sexual orientation, same sex marriage, etc.)") Why would only same sex marriage be a "special right" but opposite sex marriage not be a "special right"?--Bhuck 12:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Bhuck, I imagine that it because it is used as a term to discuss a change from current laws. Heterosexual marriage has been with us at least throughout the Judeo-Christian timeline and possibly longer. (See Genesis 2:24 and Genesis 34:9) Modern western law, as you may be aware, has a good deal of its roots in Judeo-Christian law. DavidBailey 20:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Surely you are not arguing that there is nothing "special" about heterosexual marriage? Particularly people who refer to the traditions and interpretations of Judeo-Christian law which you are citing are prone to use the term "sanctity of marriage"--I would infer from that term that they believe marriage to be a very special right.--Bhuck 08:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. I am saying you are confusing the dictionary definition with the reason for the article. Simply because Judeo-Christian law/tradition specify the sanctity of marriage does not mean that that also makes heterosexual marriage a candidate for inclusion in the article as a "special right". After all the article starts off with '"Special rights" is a political term used primarily by social conservatives in the United States...' What does inclusion of heterosexual marriage mean in this context? DavidBailey 14:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think heterosexual marriage should be included in this context. But we need to explain why the social conservatives use the term for laws that enumerate rights related to some sexual orientations, but not rights related to other sexual orientations. Do you see the problem in the phrasing here?--Bhuck 12:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, well, since this is a political term used by social conservatives, I think the article should reflect that use. If you want to add a different definition, I think that ought to be under a separate heading. IE- "Opposing view". DavidBailey 13:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not what I want to do. I don't think marriage is a "special right" in the sense in which conservatives use the term. I just think that needs to be explained in the article. I will try to find an edit to make which better reflects that--I don't think there exists a different definition or "opposing view" in that regard.--Bhuck 08:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

See Also

I added this section with a link to Affirmative action, because I believe that some of the views underlying the debate are influenced strongly by that concept. I hope it adds something to the article. --163.1.136.97 03:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)