Why marriage is not a human right

Marriage isn't a human right, because (legal) marriage is a creation of the state, and would not exist at all unless the state chooses to provide it.

If a state chooses not to grant a marriage contract, then a person/couple is not being 'denied a natural right', because marriage is not something that exists on its own.

Example - if a black person is forced into slavery, then they are being denied rights on the basis of their skin color. Skin color is something that exists on its own.

However marriage is a creation of the state. By not granting a marriage contract a person is not being prevented from doing anything that they could do on their own right.

Therefore saying that marriage is a 'human right' is dishonest, because you are saying that people have a "right" for another person (the state) to provide a service for them. Which is false. Rights are meant to protect a person from actual abuse by the state - they aren't intended to require the state to do something for the person just because the person wants it.

 

I think most people who would support what you may call, "traditional marriage," would disagree with that. They would argue that marriage preceded the state and is something separate from the state.

 

Marriage as a religious institution =/= legal marriage

 

Exactly why Virginia said that a white man didn't have any right to marry a black woman in Virginia.

You have proven Virginia's case brilliantly.

 

The state doesn't "grant" a marriage contract.

The marriage contract is between two people.. the State is not party to the contract.

 

He didn't - the courts misinterpreted it. It should have been left up to the states' to decide.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes it does, the benefits that come with the contract are provided courtesy of the state

 

He didn't what?

You know what we call it when the Supreme Court declares a law illegal? We call it enforcing the Constitution.

Meanwhile it is interesting that you agree with the State of Virginia that they could ban racially mixed marriages.

 

The founders didn't intent the Constitution to grant the federal govt that kind of power.

Who's force to live in Virginia?

 

Hmmmm who to listen to....legal experts or a kid on the internet.....decisions decisions

And exactly what the State of Virginia said- folks were welcome to leave Virginia and get married if they were black and white just so long as they didn't do so to intentionally evade Virginia law.

Thanks telling us again that you think states can forbid interracial marriage.

Personally- I think the Supreme Court is correct- and you are wrong.

 

So you are saying, you and your betrothed want to get married. You set the date but some city official denies you getting married for whatever reason.

What do you do? Probably nothing.

Or would you fight this in every court in the land?

 

It always amazes me how you people have no shame in trying to claim oppression by linking same sex marriage to interracial marriage while completely ignoring the parallels between slavery and abortion. Apparently, according to liberal logic, the right to get married precedes the basic right to life.

 

Who has been talking about same sex marriage?

I certainly haven't been in this thread at least.

You people are just obsessed with same sex marriage and abortion and oh so many things...

 

Not a very good analogy. You're comparing the right itself (in one case, marriage) to the justification of denying a right in another case (the color of the skin). A proper analogy would compare the rights in question (marriage vs freedom) vs the basis under which those rights (or privileges) are denied (gender vs skin color).

The government stepping in to prevent the slavery of one person over another is just as much an artificial creation of government as marriage. The question is the legitimacy of the cause. There is little question in anybody's mind that slavery is wrong and the unjust denial freedom is a right worth using government power to defend.

Marriage, and the basis under which it can be denied is a more complicated questions. Marriage itself may not be a right, except to the extent that it is tied to other rights... for example, it has a history of being tied to being allowed to reproduce, although that no longer exists today. It may also be tied to the right of equal protection of the law, which forbids the disparity of privileges and immunities for similarly situated parties, regardless of if the privilege or immunity in question is itself a "right".

 

Whatever.

At least a quarter of the 'States' in this Union seem to have officially decided that "marriage" is indeed a right. So, despite all the word-games a few people wish to play with this... many States have done the right thing already. Others are in the process of getting things right as we speak.

 

So the state should not pass laws blocking religious marriages from being legal. Thanks for your support.

 

Gay weddings are not illegal, that's not the same as the legal contract of marriage.

 

So your position is that you want the government to stand in the way of gay couples who are married in their religion from getting the same benefits, legal and otherwise that a heterosexual couple get.

 

They can't 'stop' them, they can choose who/who not to grant them to own their own discretion.

 

Marriage as a contract is basic legal theory... and in the case of gays it acknowledges their civil rights.. and grants them the same benefits as heterosexuals.

 

It's not a constitutional right.

 

I always thought it was funny when my cousin halted her wedding for 2 hours so someone could go run and grab a marriage license which they had forgotten to bring. I assume the ceremony could have gone on, but it is curious what kind of significance is given to that little piece of paper. They have a ceremonial copy of it on their wall, and that legal status seems quite significant to them for a variety of legal and sentimental purposes. Curious why that is so.

 

I am curious Space- do you have permission from mon de plume to use his quote?

You realize you don't have a right to use it- don't you?

LOL

 

I am always amused by the Conservatives who rail about how the Supreme Court doesn't have authority over states- and are over-reaching in decisions like Virginia v Loving.

But when a state tells its residents that they can't own hand guns- and the Supreme Court slaps down the state- they don't think the Supreme Court is over-reaching there at all.

The reality is that some authority has to decide when a law is constitutional or not. Otherwise a state could ban all gun ownership or ban inter-racial marriage and those laws would just be the end of the matter. The Supreme Court- whether we agree with all of its rulings or not- has to be the final arbitar of whether a law- federal or state is Constitutional- otherwise states could just ignore our U.S. Constitution and do anything they wanted- including preventing women from voting, reinstating slavery or ban any political minority party- Republican or Democrat.

 

Marriage is a legal matter. Marriage brings tax and legal advantages denied to those who are not married.

Discrimination is also a legal matter, and that's why the SCOTUS is hearing the two cases on same-sex marriage and not the Church.

When California voted on Prop 8, it was an admission that same-sex marriage is a legal issue that can be voted on.

 

I know where you are going with this and it's a laughing stock of the (R)ight Wing. Trying to change the law that prevents gays from being married into the choice of the person that marries them is just political ignorance.