A Marriage contract or license is not a right. Unalienable rights do not pertain to more than the individual. No one has an unalienable right to marriage or brother and sister would be allowed to marry. They cannot because it is not an unalienable right.
I don't believe it's considered a right under the US legal tradition, although in other nations that might be a different story.
It is a proper answer. There is nothing in the constitution that requires you enter into a contract. In fact the pursuit of happiness may deem that you do not. You have not answered my question.
Inasmuch as anyone can now marry whomever they please (coming soon will be polygamy, adults marrying children, close relatives, mothers and fathers, pets, etc.), there is no need whatsoever for people to be "legally married." Marriage is mostly a religious thing anyway and in secular, socialist nations such as America it is obsolete and the putrid and prurient practice should be abandoned. The only thing legal marriage does nowadays is raise revenue for the states and money for attorneys (marriage licenses, divorces, property settlements, etc., etc. Marriage provides thousands and thousands of jobs for state government employees. These little bureaucrats make careers justifying their existence doing marriage related stuff (statistics, records, laws, etc.) Practically speaking there is two kinds of marriage: One is legal marriage and the other is simply married. Let everyone be married but not legally married. Those that are simply married, unlike legally married, are free from the state redtape and all the other traditional burdens of the state.
Again marriage is part of the pursuit of happiness in my opinion and the constitution says nothing of unalienable rights.
Actually marriage has always been for economic/political reasons. Why do you think dowries came about? The same reason why the nobility used to arrange marriages for their children, for economic or political advantages.
Actually, you have that backwards. "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence. The ninth amendment of the Constitution says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." At the time of the writing, it was well understood that they were talking about the unalienable rights of the individual. "Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523 D of C "Pursuit of happiness" is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment. - - - Updated - - - What decision is that?
The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the case of Loving v Virginia it was claimed by Justice Warren that marriage was a "basic civil right of man". In this case it is still a marriage between a man and a woman, the very basis of our continued existence due to producing progeny. Equal protection under the law protects that from racial discriminatory laws. That in no way addresses the question if a State marriage contract itself is an "unalienable right".
Unalienable rights are the "absolute rights" of individuals meaning those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. If you think that a marriage contract is an unalienable right then you would have to support the marriage of brother and sister since, if unalienable, would be depriving them of their basic rights if not allowed to marry. Obviously that is not the case. A civil right is defined as follows: civil right (right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship including especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments and subsequent acts of Congress including the right to legal and social and economic equality) Those who cannot differentiate between unalienable rights and civil rights often believe that government grants rights when the opposite is true. Government of the people is supposed to protect fundamental unalienable rights.
#1 There's that scintillating sense of humor of yours again! (Jeeesh). #2 Actually, I do not believe marriage is ABOUT one's happiness. Part of what has RUINED the institution is the selfish idea that someone else is supposed to make you happy. Marriage and happiness are not mutually exclusive, but if you seek happiness and expect marriage to get that for you...you have another think coming.
A) I get the humour. ItÂ’s basic enough, even for a German. B) How would you have felt had you not been allowed to marry your husband? Happy?
In good times and in bad. Thing is: Dunno about you, but I would have been wildly unhappy had I not been allowed to marry my husband. So I would not have been able to pursue my happiness then.
You didn't ask me, but I'd say, absolutely. My marriage is about pleasure, love, and happiness. I'm sorry for you if yours is not.
Under Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights it is. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
"In good times and in bad," does not answer the question, "what is the purpose of marriage?" It's not even a complete thought.
I think this needs to be expanded: unalienable rights do not pertain to more than one individual without their consent. Consentual inter-individual relations should fall under inablienable rights. That is also a simplification, but still. As for legal marriage, I assume this is what original post means, no I dont see how it can be considered unalienable right. Consider the hypothetical situation if legal marriage was abolished for all, does that mean some rights of the people were violated? I certainly dont think so. When it comes to gay marriage, maybe you could make a case based on gender discrimination. But arguing from some unalienable right to marry is quite absurd.
