Natural Right
A Critique of Richard Berquist
November 1, 2012
G.D.O'Bradovich III
1
Richard Berquist of the University of Saint Thomas has stated-
“Just as the state did not invent marriage, so it did not invent the rights and obligations of husbands and wives toward each other -- or of parents towards their children. These are natural rights and obligations” [italics in the original]
We will explore the validity of these statements in light of natural right. A form of natural right is a contract entered by at least two parties. Although the Papist Religious Order states that entry into the priesthood means priests and bishops cannot marry, no church or religious order has the power to forbid marriage due to the nature of Natural Right. The Papal Religious Order has multiple kinds of marriage, valid and invalid. Rome states that “consanguineous” or cousin marriage is not valid. Do they have natural right to back up this statement? No, because marriage is a contract. By virtue of natural right, all contracts are valid, even a contract to hire an assassin, although these these contracts are not valid from a legal or judicial stance.
Since Richard Berquist is a professor of Philosophy, he must know better than yours truly that his statement is wrong. He makes an invalid statement or premise and logically builds upon it to reach the amazing conclusion that
[If] "we wish to subsidize homosexual friendships, we must, to avoid discrimination, subsidize all loving personal friendships. If that is absurd, so is gay marriage.”
Richard Berquist can be a poster boy for Ayn Rand’s conspiracy against the mind. Mr. Berquist has placed himself in an ethical and moral situation that could only be brought to fruition through a desire to either deceive those unaware readers or to advance an agenda that is not factual or based in Natural Right.
All contracts are valid under natural right. It is irrelevant to the Natural Right point of view if the Roman Catholic Church acknowledges consanguineous marriages or remarriage after divorce, or the Minnesota legislature has prohibited “gay” marriage in their statutes. Because it a natural right, the state, the church or a consensus of humanity can not remove that right-it is inviolate without exception.
Gentle read, we must separate the legal from the philosophical. Some commentators state that the city has an interest in protecting marriage. If this were true, and not a sham argument, the city would declare divorce illegal, which none of our 50 states have done. One could infer that the states have no interest in protecting marriage. With divorce illegal, we are left in the position of two parties entering into a contract, and if both parties desire the the contract to be terminated, to remain bound to the terms of the contract. Clearly, no contract is without a clause, implied or explicit, for either one or both of the parties to void the contract. I remind the reader that this exception to contract law has been successfully utilized in the Roman Catholic Church. The Orthodox church recognizes marriage as a contract that can be ended twice. In the Orthodox Church, there is a special word used to describe a termination of the marriage contract-divorce.
We must applaud the legal minds that passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. Previously, marriage law was the domain of the state. The individual states set age and other restrictions to marriage. By passing a Federal Law, this jurisdiction is taken from the state and resides with the Federal Government. It will only take one US Supreme Court ruling it overturn it and not dozens of state legislature taking decades for the same result. If marriage law was left to the states, there would be no reason for the US Supreme Court to intervene in the state law concerning marriage. However, since DOMA is a Federal Law, the Supreme Court will hear the arguments for and against DOMA and rule according to subjective law, not natural right.
Natural Right and objective law will meet in the US Supreme Court. Perhaps Mr. Berquist will be a friend of the court and, if so, I would suggest that it would be unwise for him to attempt sham arguments in their court as he has done in print.
“Just as the state did not invent marriage, so it did not invent the rights and obligations of husbands and wives toward each other -- or of parents towards their children. These are natural rights and obligations” [italics in the original]
We will explore the validity of these statements in light of natural right. A form of natural right is a contract entered by at least two parties. Although the Papist Religious Order states that entry into the priesthood means priests and bishops cannot marry, no church or religious order has the power to forbid marriage due to the nature of Natural Right. The Papal Religious Order has multiple kinds of marriage, valid and invalid. Rome states that “consanguineous” or cousin marriage is not valid. Do they have natural right to back up this statement? No, because marriage is a contract. By virtue of natural right, all contracts are valid, even a contract to hire an assassin, although these these contracts are not valid from a legal or judicial stance.
Since Richard Berquist is a professor of Philosophy, he must know better than yours truly that his statement is wrong. He makes an invalid statement or premise and logically builds upon it to reach the amazing conclusion that
[If] "we wish to subsidize homosexual friendships, we must, to avoid discrimination, subsidize all loving personal friendships. If that is absurd, so is gay marriage.”
Richard Berquist can be a poster boy for Ayn Rand’s conspiracy against the mind. Mr. Berquist has placed himself in an ethical and moral situation that could only be brought to fruition through a desire to either deceive those unaware readers or to advance an agenda that is not factual or based in Natural Right.
All contracts are valid under natural right. It is irrelevant to the Natural Right point of view if the Roman Catholic Church acknowledges consanguineous marriages or remarriage after divorce, or the Minnesota legislature has prohibited “gay” marriage in their statutes. Because it a natural right, the state, the church or a consensus of humanity can not remove that right-it is inviolate without exception.
Gentle read, we must separate the legal from the philosophical. Some commentators state that the city has an interest in protecting marriage. If this were true, and not a sham argument, the city would declare divorce illegal, which none of our 50 states have done. One could infer that the states have no interest in protecting marriage. With divorce illegal, we are left in the position of two parties entering into a contract, and if both parties desire the the contract to be terminated, to remain bound to the terms of the contract. Clearly, no contract is without a clause, implied or explicit, for either one or both of the parties to void the contract. I remind the reader that this exception to contract law has been successfully utilized in the Roman Catholic Church. The Orthodox church recognizes marriage as a contract that can be ended twice. In the Orthodox Church, there is a special word used to describe a termination of the marriage contract-divorce.
We must applaud the legal minds that passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. Previously, marriage law was the domain of the state. The individual states set age and other restrictions to marriage. By passing a Federal Law, this jurisdiction is taken from the state and resides with the Federal Government. It will only take one US Supreme Court ruling it overturn it and not dozens of state legislature taking decades for the same result. If marriage law was left to the states, there would be no reason for the US Supreme Court to intervene in the state law concerning marriage. However, since DOMA is a Federal Law, the Supreme Court will hear the arguments for and against DOMA and rule according to subjective law, not natural right.
Natural Right and objective law will meet in the US Supreme Court. Perhaps Mr. Berquist will be a friend of the court and, if so, I would suggest that it would be unwise for him to attempt sham arguments in their court as he has done in print.
Post Script
“Just as the state did not invent marriage, so it did not invent the rights and obligations of husbands and wives toward each other -- or of parents towards their children. These are natural rights and obligations”
I remain ignorant of “natural obligations” in philosophy concerning husbands and wives and of parents towards their children. If Mr. Berquist is creating a new branch of philosophy entitled “Natural Obligations”, I am not aware of it, and will concede his innovation in epistemology. However, I remain curious why parents have a “natural obligation” to “their children” specifically, but not to all children generally.
I remain ignorant of “natural obligations” in philosophy concerning husbands and wives and of parents towards their children. If Mr. Berquist is creating a new branch of philosophy entitled “Natural Obligations”, I am not aware of it, and will concede his innovation in epistemology. However, I remain curious why parents have a “natural obligation” to “their children” specifically, but not to all children generally.