Robert Delahunty, who a decade ago provided the Bush Administration with a legal rationale for torture and detention without trial, added to his legacy on freedom this week with an op-ed in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune.
Delahunty, a controversial law professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law in Minnesota, argued that the world has a finite supply of freedom, and thus if one group is to acquire more freedom, it must take that freedom away from others. For example, he argues, if the freedom to marry is broadened in Minnesota, then those who oppose expanded freedom lose the “freedom” to be free from others’ freedom.
And so, Delahunty implies, neoconservatives must increase their own freedom at everyone else’s expense — by passing constitutional amendments (such as one currently on the ballot in Minnesota) to deny freedom of religion and conserve freedom for the few who really deserve it.
“Of course, some tradeoffs are desirable. No one now regrets that the constitutional amendment banning slavery necessarily ended the freedom to own slaves. But it is not an argument for that amendment that it expanded freedom without contracting it.”
Well, I’m sure we can find some nutcases who are still up in a tizzy about not having the “freedom to own slaves”
The Constitution does not grant the freedom to oppress.
Is this guy serious? Must be another Ayn Rand devotee from the sound of his “me, me, me” logic. Clearly unamerican in his thinking or just plain coo-coo, either is plausible.
How appropriate that the photo of him accompanying his inane argument seems to show him wearing a s**t-eating grin.
The Constitution was written to protect EVERYBODY’S freedom, not just the freedom of the majority. Robert Delahunty is a nutcase himself if he believes that the Constitution was ever about the latter.
I learned in school years ago that there is a difference between freedom and license. This guy and a lot of other right wing religious characters have apparently not learned the difference. To them, freedom means doing whatever they want, even when that means restricting the freedom of others to be themselves and to have the same rights. I would call that license. They want the license to restrict the rights and freedoms of others they don’t like, because they feel offended when others have the same rights.
This reminds me of a joke from the comic Dilbert. Dilbert asked Dogbert to wish him luck to which Dogbert responded that doing so would mean less luck for him.
Can we really call the freedom to take another person’s freedom a type of freedom? This argument can support anything, even murder.
Circular logic. What a waste of energy.
Marriage is a civil right, not a religious one. Why don’t people understand that fact?!
In Canada, religious institutions do not have to include same-sex marriage if they wish . That’s their (bigoted) freedom protected.
Personally, I’d like to see the previledge of religious institutions to perform marriage ceremony’s removed.
Separation of church and state!
Holy balls on a cow! This guy is crazy. And he’s a LAW professor?
Right on, Scott, about the grin.
The faculty at the University of St. Thomas write all sorts of logically-impaired op ed pieces for the Star Tribune against gay marriage. I think it’s a new condition for gaining tenure.
I think the Star Tribune sifted through their stack of submissions to find the weakest argument in support of the amendment. He certainly filled the bill!
This is the “quality” of rightwing “intellectuals”?!
Idiot. Giving someone freedom does not take away from anothers’ freedom. Where did this dolt study civics and logic?
The article is absolute crap… but the comments are excellent! Definitely worth a read!
Tim– The faculty here at St. Thomas have a variety of opinions on this. Prof. Delahunty was responding to my piece in the Star-Tribune, which took the opposite view: http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/167253365.html?refer=y
And this: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/19/my-take-the-christian-case-for-gay-marriage/