Discrimination due to age and the ability to form rational judgments is one thing. Discrimination because a government official disapproves of a constituent's sexual practices is quite another. And are you saying that if states provide schools and force students to attend, those states have a Constitutional right to practice racial discrimination within the school system they created?

As a philosophical matter, Objectivists would not consider any contract valid that called for violation of the rights of others. As a practical matter, governments generally do not enforce contracts that are not valid in the eyes of the law. But regardless of the law, Objectivism recognizes that individuals still retain their right to enter into valid, non-infringing contracts (such as the right to gamble with one's own money) even if the law forbids it.

Yes, Society absolutely does have the right to discriminate in its enforcement of contracts. We do it all the time.

"The right to government recognition of a valid contract..."

Validity is not obtained simply by entering into a contract. For example, if a sixteen-year-old is given a credit card, they sign a contract they will pay back the money they borrow. However, a sixteen-year-old is not considered a fiduciary agent for themselves by the State. One must be eighteen. So if the sixteen-year-old charges a bunch of money to the credit card and fails to pay it back, the credit card company has no legal recourse via the State to enforce payment. It is an unenforceable contract. Many such exist. That is precisely what contract law cases center around this question: is the contract legally binding. And the people - through the government - determine which kinds of contracts they authorize the judicial system to enforce and grant validity to.

"The Constitution says nothing about public education"

And for that reason education should be left entirely to the States to deal with. What should be noted is that up until the early 20th century, there was no government school system for K-12. I would love to see the government entirely out of the business of schooling and leave it to private enterprise.

The right to enter into contracts perhaps, but the enforcement is entirely up to whether or not the contract is valid in the eyes of the law. One can hire someone to kill someone else but the government can not force the killer to complete the contract.

RE: “Right to life is an ideal society currently recognizes. Those who argue otherwise and murder are prosecuted as violating the ideals of society, are they not?”

No, they’re prosecuted as violating the individual rights of the victim. The proper function of government, according to Objectivist philosophy, is to protect individual rights. Period. It is not a proper function of government to “officially” promulgate, enforce or promote ideals. That (except for the “enforce” part) is left up to individuals and freely associating groups in the private realm.

As to slavery, I would point out that not only was it perpetuated in the original Constitution, some of the more revered Founding Fathers owned slaves throughout their entire adult lifetimes. And you didn’t answer my question: Would you consider it okay for there to be a monument on public land promoting the re-introduction of slavery? If not, how do you justify a monument to the Ten Commandments? Both seem equally constitutional to me.

RE: “Rights are individual - they do not apply to contracts (i.e. agreements between individuals).” This would be news to Ayn Rand – she considered the right to enter into contracts to be an individual right, enforceable by government.

RE: “In contract law, society - through its agent the government - has every authority to choose the conditions under which it will recognize and\or enforce contractual provisions.”

“Society” – meaning government – has no authority to discriminate in its recognition and enforcement of contracts, based upon the religious preferences of the government official tasked with validating such contracts.

RE: ‘Again, what privilege or immunity is being abridged? What life, liberty, or property is being deprived?”

Answer: The right to government recognition of a valid contract, especially when such recognition is granted selectively based on the religious beliefs of the government official doing the granting.

It’s no different in principle than forbidding state and local governments from forcing African-Americans to attend inferior schools. The Constitution says nothing about public education, so by your logic the 9th and 10th Amendments would allow states to resume discrimination in educational opportunity based on a person’s race.

"The issue goes to the heart of what a free society is all about."

Do you mean free to do what you want regardless of the consequences? If you seek that you seek an illusion. Reality dictates to us that choices have consequences over which we have no control.


"The 14th Amendment overrides the 9th and 10th Amendments"

Your statements are gross overreaches and misrepresentations. Read the text of the Fourteenth Amendment: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The Fourteenth Amendment doesn't override the Ninth or Tenth by reserving specific powers to the Federal government, it simply does away with slavery. If one reads the comments and original interpretation by its own author, one can do nothing rational but conclude that the Fourteenth has no extension into resolving marriage or even that of illegal aliens. That it has been perverted in its application appalls me.

Again, what privilege or immunity is being abridged? What life, liberty, or property is being deprived? None, whatsoever. We have already established that the Federal Government has no authority over marriage. What is forgotten is that neither do the States! The issuance of marriage "licenses" was to try to prevent interracial marriages by establishing a punishment for such. Prior to that, however, marriages were solely the realm of religion! To try to argue that somehow government has authority to declare what constitutes a marriage is simply not supported.

Furthermore, there is no right to get married. Rights are individual - they do not apply to contracts (i.e. agreements between individuals). In contract law, society - through its agent the government - has every authority to choose the conditions under which it will recognize and\or enforce contractual provisions.

"Objectivism sees the government’s purpose as the protection of individual rights, not the promotion of any set of religious beliefs or lack thereof. It’s either/or."

That's a false dichotomy. Governments (ideally) are created to protect the rights of their peoples, but they do so according to codification around a set of common values. Why do we argue against a socialist government? Not because it is a government but because the ideals of it discourage equality and justify the theft of property from some to materially support others, not the least of which is a ruling class of elites. Why do we argue against a monarchy? Again, not because it is a government, but because again it discourages the notion of equality and overtly sets up a ruler with special privileges which must again be propped up via the taxation of property. Go through the list and you'll find the same thing with fascists, communists, dictatorships, religious theocracies, etc. until you come to democracy or representative government. It is only in a representative government where equality of opportunity (an ideal) is placed at a premium. I emphasize premium because the issue is the relative value of various ideals.

Equality has an asterisk, however: it induces a very fine balancing act when we begin dealing with societal ideals and their justifications. If we do truly value the freedom of the mind, we must be willing to allow to some degree for disagreement, but that disagreement must have bounds and must eventually coalesce around resolution. Unlimited disagreement defeats the very purpose of society. There must be decisions made at some point as to what ideas are acceptable in society and what are not. If we choose to recognize reality, we must admit that not all ideas have equitable merit. Society must - in order to continue - weigh the individual merits of the ideas being proposed and evaluate which provide the most value. A society which encourages or promotes the ideas of lesser merit as either superior to or even equal to those of greater merit only deludes itself. (Note that I do not promote it being the idea that a society's benefit may come at an individual's loss. To the contrary, what I allude to with the use of "society" is the accepted practice in representative government of electing leaders to act on one's behalf.)

So when evaluating the ideals of society and which ideals will be "officially" promulgated/enforced/promoted, it absolutely does behoove us to examine the relative merits of those ideals. Right to life is an ideal society currently recognizes. Those who argue otherwise and murder are prosecuted as violating the ideals of society, are they not? Thus, to say that government takes no role in promoting beliefs is utter nonsense. We do it all the time. The real question is which ideals we promulgate.


"one of the principles underpinning the original Constitution was that slavery was lawful"

That's a pretty slanted way to look at the matter. The original Constitution called for an outlawing of slavery, but when it was heatedly discussed, everyone realized that the Southern States would rather break off to form their own nation than to dissolve slavery. The 3/5ths Compromise was made specifically with the idea that at some point in the future the "issue of slavery" would be revisited, but it was by no means acknowledged as a societal value or ideal. I am surprised and dismayed that you would argue such a point.

The issue goes to the heart of what a free society is all about. It's not about marriage itself, it's about whether government officials are entitled to invoke their religious convictions to discriminate among the people they were elected to serve. The 14th Amendment overrides the 9th and 10th Amendments in forbidding states to practice discrimination when it comes to equal protection of the rights of their citizens. It's the same principle that threw out state-mandated racial discrimination in education in the middle of the 20th Century.

Ted Cruz takes the Constitutional stand on this by saying that because there is no provision in the Constitution which expressly gives the Federal Government jurisdiction over marriage, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments specifically reserve the powers over such to themselves. Those States which choose to democratically pass laws which recognize homosexual unions are consistent with the Constitution of the United States. I agree with him. It is the same reasoning with Obamacare: the Federal Government has no express powers and so any kind of Federal authority over such is a usurpation of powers given to the States.

(I would also note that we've already previously agreed that marriage licenses in and of themselves are only for taxation and control and should be eliminated, so why you keep bringing up this issue I can not fathom.)

Cruz strongly defended Kim Davis, a public official who refused to perform her duties for certain constituents because doing so violated her religious convictions. If allowing public officials to withhold government services for religious reasons does not constitute support for an “establishment of religion,” I don’t know what does.

I would respond to your entire post, but I think two sentences of yours say it all. “And actually, it is the government's place to not only promote, but enforce ideals. That is government's purpose.” Well, nearly every dictatorship promotes a set of ideals, and has no compunction about enforcing them at the point of a gun (or worse). Objectivism sees the government’s purpose as the protection of individual rights, not the promotion of any set of religious beliefs or lack thereof. It’s either/or.

And by the way, one of the principles underpinning the original Constitution was that slavery was lawful and should remain so. Would you consider it okay for there to be a monument on public land promoting the re-introduction of slavery?