Marriage isn't a human right

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civil_and_Political_Rights

Refer to Article 23 marriage is declared by the signing parties including the Unites States as a RIGHT and since its ratified it has the same standing as the US Constitution and is superior to domestic law on this matter. Period and end of story.

 

Non sequitur. Rights are not necessities of life, but the things one would have if others did not take them away: life, liberty, and property in the fruits of one's labor.

Marriage benefits are a legal institution, therefore not something people would otherwise have, and thus not a right. However, marriage per se, a contract of domestic union, is a state people would otherwise be at liberty to enter into, government or no government, and the liberty to do so is just as much a right as the liberty to trade with one's fellows.

 

What's wrong? You got a problem w/marriage?

 

Maybe best not to go there...

 

Just like freedom of religion then?

 

It does not refer specificaly to legal marriage. Abolishing legal marriage or privatization of marriage, as imagined by some libertarians, would not be in conflict with any recognized rights of anyone.

 

Marriage is a legal concept, it's not a term that applies to two human beings shacking up with each other.

Yes, I have a natural right to shack up with whomever I please, whenever I please. I did not and will not authorize my government to interfere with this activity, or attempt to "regulate" it in any way.

Last I checked, this is still a government of affirmative Powers. No such power has ever been granted to our federal government.

So I'll thank the rotten bastids to stay the f*ck out of my sex life.

You ever read the Tenth Amendment? That's what it means.

 

Institutionalization of marriage happen for a very simple reason .

In hunter-gatherer societies young women were going after older men, why ? because hunting requires experience not strength so older men could feed women and children . But older men could not compete against youngsters when it came into keeping their females so societies made marriage a "sacred" unbreakable bond for everyone to respect.
Is it a human right? i guess not , is it a requirement for modern societies to function? not any more., why? because women no longer rely on men for their survival and the survival of their children .
Of course this opens up another discussion since marriage in hunter gatherer societies expanded women's lifespan . When women went out to gather berries and oranges grandmothers ( useless females post menopause) had to keep an eye on the kids , parents have more time to search for food and the surplus food expanded breeding capabilities so older women got a role. There was an article few weeks ago about women in the US facing a declining lifespan but i can not search for it right now , it will be interesting to know if nature is keep on adapting to social changes.

 

Then neither were any of the other rights that the supreme court added, such as privacy, interstate/intrastate travel, procreation, abortion, use of contraception, family relations, etc.....If you are saying marriage is not really a right, despite the fact that the supreme court interprets the constitution to include them as rights, alongside life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness, then none of the rights they added can be considered rights. So, you are saying that the government should have the authority to outlaw childbirth, or to dictate whether people are allowed to start a family, or travel inside or outside their state, or use contraception to prevent pregnancy, and many other things.

 

Funny, I don't view any of the things listed in the OP as rights. Food, water, clothing and healthcare are necessities, but you have no absolute right to any of them. As for marriage, of course you have a right to marry whoever you want. You have the right to anything that does not impinge on the rights of others.

As for the what the law says, I care very little. Governments, through the threat of force, can deny people their inalienable rights or conversely grant them rights they already have, but that does not change the inalienable nature of the rights themselves.

 

Really? So then brothers and sisters can get married right? Moms and daughters can get married? How about fathers and sons? I must have missed this.

Can the guy with 20 wives get married? I mean if it's a right for him and all of his wives to marry then why aren't they allowed to marry?

 

Actually marriage is a State issue, along with healtcare...whatever isn't enumerated in the Constitution is up to the States, anything that contradicts that is illegal regardless of what the thieves and criminals say.

 

Actually that's not true. The federal government has the authority to pass laws, and as long as it does not violate something already in the constitution, they are considered supreme over the state laws. That is the supremacy clause of the constitution.

And the supreme court has the authority to interpret the constitution. They ruled that marriage is a right. However, they did not give a definition to marriage, which is why states have the power to define it themselves and dictate the right.

 

We should just stop making this archaic religious practice into an official legal standing that comes with benefits. The only difference between a couple, and a married couple, is that the later went to some whackjob who claims to speak to "god" and got him to say "yeah ok" to their relationship.

 

Is this an argument for slavery or something?

 

Yes, really.

You're off topic. These have nothing to do with the matter under discussion. That said, I have no philosophical objection to any of the above being legal. Incest skeeves me out, but that's not a good enough reason for me to object.

 

Krist.. Now Walid Shoebat...

 

It most certainly is not off topic. Is marriage a right? If it were a right there would be nothing to stop incestuous couples from getting married would there? But it's NOT a right, therefore they're not allowed to marry.

 

The Supreme Court has held, in MULTIPLE cases, most notably Loving v. Virginia, that it is, in fact, a right. Whether or not you agree, that makes it a right for citizens of this country, until either SCOTUS reverses themselves, or a Constitutional Amendment is passed that renders their decision moot. As neither of those things have happened, it stands as a right. That is an indisputable fact, not up for debate, and not subject to opinion.

If you wish to make a case that it should include incestuous couples, be my guest. I would not stand in opposition to such a case. However, to the best of my knowledge, no such case is making it's way through the courts.

 

The position in the first post and title of the thread is: Marriage isn't a human right.

I proved by a major international rights treaty we and all but a few small nations some with questionable human rights records signed it therefore Marriage is a human right, even if the government only recognizes it as a religious or personal contract matter its still a fundamental human right since the vast majority of nations agreed it is. Rights are conferred by authority of governments not nature. You can claim a right doesn't mean anyone needs to recognize it.

In this case the right to marriage leaving the nature vague in the wording is in fact a human right in most nations if you leave out the three or four that don't recognize the treaty or want out of it after signing - North Korea.

 

Rough translation: Don't bother me with facts or the law, my mind's made up.

 

Exactly. Marriage is a legal concept/service created by the state, it's not necessary to 'legally marry' in order to have sex, therefore it's not a right.

You don't have a natural right to tax benefits, visitation rights, etc granted by the state - this has nothing to do with who you shack up with, and is not a natural or human right

Then you have no need for legal marriage, since legal marriage is a form of regulation based on one's relationship status.

If you want them to stay out of your sex life, you don't need legal marriage - just like someone who wants the govt to 'stay out of their Medicare".

- - - Updated - - -

Freedom of religion is a constitutional right, not a 'human right'. Though if freedom of religion didn't exist, this'd likely mean people being imprisoned or even executed for heresy - which would be a violation of human rights, so no freedom of religion would likely lead to human rights violation

 

It's not a human right anymore than "owning a Lamborghini" is, because it's not required for survival.

Legal marriage as an institution is in fact something which many straight couples who already have the right find undesirable.

 

People "wouldn't have" legal marriage since it's provided solely by the state, and would not exist without the state. People can have sex or enter a relationship without a "marriage license".

Just like driver's licenses are a creation of the state - and even in a country where "driver's licenses" didn't exist, this wouldn't "somehow prevent" people from being able to drive cars.

Marriage benefits are the sole purpose of legal marriage.

People already have a right to perform a private wedding or marriage ceremony regardless of whether the state legally recognizes the relationship - so unless you're saying the state is imprisoning gay couples for having gay weddings, then this argument is invalid.

 

The Constitution isn't the arbiter on what is/isn't human rights

Legal marriage isn't a natural right since it doesn't exist on its own (it only exists as a creation of govt), and people are capable of having sex or entering relationship's without being handed a slip of paper by a court that says "legally married" on it, so it's not a right

Then if "owning a Lambo" is how someone pursues their own happiness, then it's automatically a "right" - just because they 'want it'