Mr. George Will,

I articulate issues in a manner that few if any others can ; please provide your attention to the following treatise ; unfortunately the public is woefully ignorant of political science terminology .

Four terms are highly relevant to understanding political science : negative wrights , positive wrights , negative liberties and positive liberties . Please excuse my method of neologism with the term wrights , until there is an opportunity for me to explain .

Prior to an existence of a State of Citizens there is a law of nature and , to improve ones odds of comfort and survival , individuals surrender fates of moral relativism for reprisals of law according to a constitution .

With respect to government , an orthodox definition of libertarian principle is a deontological application of negative wrights , as negative obligations of government , as negative actions of government for it to abstain from interference in the private issues of its citizens , which establishes individualism and , in extremes where government is non existence , it returns society to the condition of absolute Individualism and potential anarchy .

Constitutions of liberal democracies are written in terms of negative wrights , which fundamentally represent constitutional protections from government !

Now , consider that citizens may establish positive wrights through legislation to compel government to perform some positive action , such as an endowment of government or to compel some individual within the private sector to establish either a negative liberty (leave another alone) or a positive liberty (compel a one to provide an action or service for another) .
The only way to standardize the understanding of negative and positive wrights is to assure that they are defined with respect to government , else one could seek to define a positive wright to establish a negative liberty in the private sector is a negative wright from government ; indeed , positive action of government is authoritarian and the antithesis of a libertarian definition !

With the previous foundation one is able to emphasize the constitutional meaning of protections from government versus endowments from government ; also consider that libertarian ethos may accept positive wrights to establish negative liberties in so far as it assures free association and private ownership of property .

What are the stipulations mentioned relevant to same sex marriage and how should the government become or not become involved in different styles of civil contract ?

A premise is that any civil contract where two or more individuals share a vested interest in community property is “marriage” , even two corporations can said to be married ; such an assumption disturbs those dogmatic about the term “marriage” .

With an emphasis on a value for individualism , government adheres to the principles of negative wrights such that citizens of a state are protected from government and are able to negotiate any valid (informed consent) style of civil contract they choose , such that polygamy , polyandry , commune , homosexual and heterosexual are not outlawed and are not illegal !

Ultimately , government becomes involved in “marriage” through the legislation of positive wrights , which may include registration for purposes of taxation , or benefits of endowment , etc .

An additional premise is that “negative wrights may be equally protected , while positive wrights may not be equally endowed” , and for one to receive relief for unequal endowments from government , one must establish that it violates their constitutional protections from government , which is not necessarily easy as one may simply consider affirmative action !

Indeed , given a distinction between races and sexes , it is clearly available to make a distinction between styles of civil contract , which disturbs those who are dogmatic about an non distinction between styles of civil contract .

The DOMA stipulated that all previous legislation , which is a civil contract between the State and its Citizens , should adhere to the articles of assumption upon which it was passed – which is for heterosexual , monogamous , non sibling , non retarded civil contracts .

Adversely , DOMA should not establish that legislation may only be passed for a certain style of civil contract ; rather , subcategories of civil contract styles should be established and each be provided positive wrights according to circumstances of each : simply , consider taxation between two corporations with different practices , or consider the marriage penalty .

Consider the original design of social security which was passed based upon a family convention of a male bread winner and a female caretaker and that one qualified based upon a single payer ; and , then consider its discriminating features relative to non conventional civil contracts and further consider the contemporary circumstance where both husband and wife pay the tax !

I am confident in having neglected to include some of my favoured elements or aphorisms .

A response would be appreciated , there is more to consider .

Sincerely ,


Am Weighting A Response

Amicus Merit Brief on Same Sex Marriage to the Supreme Court of The United States