"Slaves did not lose their dignity because the government allowed them to be enslaved" - Justice Tho

[Tab]

Justice Clarence Thomas has a fervent dissent of the Supreme Court’s historic decision to invalidate same-sex marriage bans. His argument, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, quibbles with the definition of liberty itself. “Since well before 1787, liberty has been understood as freedom from government action, not entitlement to government benefits,” Thomas writes. Working from this principle, Thomas insists that the petitioners in the case “have in no way been deprived” of their liberty. “They have been able to travel freely around the country, making their homes where they please. Far from being incarcerated or physically restrained, petitioners have been left alone to order their lives as they see fit.” And yet he takes the argument even further—because human dignity “has long been understood in this country to be innate,” here’s who else Thomas thinks hasn’t been deprived of it:

"The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied government benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity and it cannot take it away."

I respectfully disagree. I find this wrong on so many levels.

Link to original: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/06/26/clarence_thomas_same_sex_marriage_dissent_slaves_did_not_lose_their_dignity.html

[Igel]

1. It's a cultural difference.

One view of dignity and honor holds that your dignity proceeds from how you live your life. Do you live it in accord with your principles? Honor is something you maintain by keeping your acts in line with your principles; nobody can remove your dignity, you can only remove it yourself. This is personal dignity.

This gives rise to the idea of Jews, starving and beaten, maintaining their dignity as they are herded into gas chambers, or somebody stepping onto the gallows platform and meeting death with dignity. Nobody can take away that dignity because it's something you assign yourself and which others, if they know your standards and your behavior, would see.

The other view is that dignity is external, and if people don't show you respect, if they don't show you honor, you have no dignity. If you lie, cheat and steal, you maintain your dignity as long as people don't insult you by saying you're lying, cheating, and stealing. You are what you appear to be and what people say you are. It's less important what they think.

This is the example of a general or a politician sitting at a state dinner in which everybody knows his wife has slept with half the men at the table. Nobody dares call him a cuckold, nor accuse his wife of adultery. He maintains his honor and there's nothing for him to defend. Should somebody say, "Hey, I screwed your wife last night--and I was her third man!" then he has to defend his honor. If he destroys the person who insulted his wife, then his honor is restored: nobody dares to insult him, and the insulter was vanquished and the truth of what he said is immaterial. Unfortunately, the only way to have dignity is for others to assign it to you, and that makes you entirely dependent on others for your sense of self-worth.


The second is old and very widespread. You can find it from Japan westward to Hawaii. It's unevenly distributed, though. Various cultures have the first kind of dignity: It's been considered the Xian ideal for nearly two millennia, but observed more in the breech than in the act. It was a part of Enlightenment thought, as well. It was only the two working together that squashed much of the external dignity view in parts of Europe and the US, for instance, and allowed duels to largely fade, honor killings to become rare, and blood feuds to die away. Where you see people killing each other over insults or waiting a week before killing the person who slept with his/her significant other you typically find the second kind of "dignity." They have to get rid of the humiliation they feel, their loss of reputation and dignity.

It becomes very toxic when external dignity is taken to apply to a group, so that a person gets part of his dignity and honor from the group that he belongs to. Then he feels the need to defend group honor; at that point it's harder and harder to have one society.

[Tab]

3. I don't have a philosphy degree

so I suspect I'm at a disadvantage, but from current "events" like the blindfolded and naked John Walker Lyndh ("American Taliban&quot being prepared for rendering to an unknown site, not to mention slaves whipped and sold naked (and females later raped) and a million other things, although you're true - a strong person could maintain personal dignity (in fact, the ones that survived prison camps and whatnot probably did) but not everyone did, and the government did its best to remove it from those it could.

Does the ability to get married rise to the level of keeping dignity in the face of major life inequities? I would argue it doesn't, but if anything, that's more of a reason not to be worried about it and not to try to raise it to such. It's just marriage. It's going steady with benefits. I've been married and divorced (it happens) and remarried (coming up on my 10th anniversary). I'm not saying it's not important, I'm saying it doesn't rise to the level that it needs to be legislated. Anyone should be married. You want to keep box turtles off the list, fine. You want to keep immediate siblings off the list, fine (because that creates social issues and genetic problems).

Beyond that, I don't care. I fail to see how a gay couple buying the house next to me is going to "threaten" my marriage. I hear that a lot, but I never hear the exacts on how it'll happen. I have gay friends I was friendly with before I knew they were gay. I really don't give a crap if they're into same-sex, or furry fandom (one is, though she's hetero) or whatever.

Dignity, also, I think is instilled since birth (or should be). Not every family raises their child to have dignity, particularly if they perceive a failing on the part of the child. Sad but true.

TL;dr: This shouldn't have even made it to the Supreme Court. It shouldn't be an issue. Dignity and honor should be self-possessed, but often they aren't, or they weren't instilled to begin with, or instilled in a weak way. Just because a government can act as if dignity and honor don't matter, doesn't mean that they should.

[hifiguy]

2. Metallized hydrogen only wishes

it was as dense as Uncle Ruckus.

[LittleBlue]

13. ....

[PowerToThePeople]

4. Just because someone is strong enough to take the beating

does not mean you should beat them.

[Tab]

7. A pithier answer to the same question.

I should have used that.

Otherwise we're capable of torturing anyone (omg, is that happening now??) under the guise that they should "handle it".

It's wrong, no matter how you cut it.

[Motown_Johnny]

5. Well then,

since the government cannot bestow dignity and it cannot take it away, then this decision does nothing to harm "traditional" marriage.

Works for me.

[Dirty Socialist]

8. Correct

Spot on!

[JonLP24]

6. Is he serious?

Then we try to wonder we they get the ideas that lead to the foundation of their beliefs which leads to the every day racism & discrimination, hate crimes, and mass shootings.

Unless he badly misunderstands what the definition of dignity -- bestow dignity? It can certainly treat people with dignity or not treat people with dignity. Very confusing on so many levels -- I was expecting the context to possibly be a reparations claims but even though well aware of the recent didn't expect it to be statement said in that because he says all this on slavery to the internment camps. Entitlement to government benefits. Odd to be using those as examples in support of what he is rejecting though I understand they aren't incarcerated or held in a slavery institution but you can apply this to numerous examples in a family law situation or discriminatory policy but on liberty what he understands and what it means again is different. Free from restrictions, their marriage not recognized in a state they moved to based on options for a variety reasons like military don't receive anything that would be provided if they were. He makes it like it is so simple -- especially in employment or economic opportunities where there is none.

It isn't confusing knowing he'd dissent no matter the law, precedents, whatever so writing something is just something to get out of the way the walking through the logic of the terms and applying that to say it isn't what it clearly is. The dignity use is a head scratcher particularly with the example like what is going through his mind when he decides I'll go with this, deny it based on this, use this as an example. At-the-very least, he has a remarkable poor understanding of definitions of relatively simple words when they are expected to be well versed on things like "reasonable suspicion", "probable cause", "exhaustion", etc.

[spanone]

9. i don't disagree with respect. clarence is a fucking moron.

[Paladin]

10. What the hell planet has this miserable person been living on, for the last 50 years?

Helpful hint, Justice Thomas: you have never exhibited one shred of dignity in your public life, and I don't foresee you doing so in the future---not unless you take pity on this nation and step down from your seat on the Court and simultaneously vacate Antonin Scalia's toxic shadow. And that's not going to happen, is it?

[rocktivity]

11. The way to dispense dignity is to dispense EQUALITY

The Supreme Court declared his "separate but equal" kind of dignity to be invalid quite a long time ago.


rocktivity

[Rex]

12. 'The government ALLOWED them to be enslaved'? Did hey really say that!?

What planet does that fuckwad live on!? It scares me that someone with such a huge amount of power as a supreme court justice can be that increadibly fucking STUPID!!!

Scary!!!

Tell that to all the people STILL in Gitmo MORON! Those that STILL have not been charged with a single crime! The government can stip away a persons humanity!

Ugh...the stupid is epic!

[CatWoman]

14. what in the world would that sorry fuck know anything about "dignity"?

other than how to spell it.

and that's a reach.

[hifiguy]

15. Checking things like that are what

law clerks are for.

[Lyric]

16. Dignity that is violated, disrespected and ignored

is still dignity--but the taste of it is bitter in your mouth.