Marriage isn't a human right

Is free speech necessary for survival? No. Therefore free speech is not a human right? Your argument is flawed in how you are defining human rights. Human rights are "commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being." They are not "rights required as a basic necessity for survival." They are rights required simply by being human.

Inherent in humanity is the formation of relationships, as we are social creatures. The formation of committed and deep monogamous relationships is one of the most fundamental expressions of this element of humanity--and we call this type of relationship marriage. To say it is not a human right defies the very meaning of such rights.

 

Well technically 'free speech' itself isn't a human right - but locking people up just for saying something the state disapproves of would be a violation of human rights, so the only logical conclusion is to allow it.

Services provided courtesy of the state (like legal marriage) are not one of those, and they're not 'inherent in humans' since they don't exist in and of themselves - they exist because the state created them - that'd be like arguing that driver's licenses are a 'basic human right'.

No it's called... um living together in a monogamous relationship - you don't need a court to hand you a slip of paper with the word 'legally married' on it in order to do that. How did the native Americans ever live in monogamous/married relationships then - with no written language and no court to hand them a slip of paper telling them 'it's okay to have sex'? Give me a break

Baloney

 

Although I posted on this a while ago (now revised) the chatter about the question of marriage being a right, and if so what kind of right continues. Those claiming that it’s not a right as a means of justifying the withholding of marries from same sex couples keep repeating the same inane talking points. In doing so they do not provide any documentation to support their view, and they do not provide any sound logical, legal or philosophical argument. In addition, they have not responded directly to anything that I have presented. Therefor I will try again.

I maintain that marriage is a right. Call it a natural right, a human right, or a fundamental right-it matters little. Natural rights are closely associated with human rights –those rights that we enjoy simply by virtue of being human. Rights that cannot be given or taken away by government. Rights are bestowed upon us at birth. So is marriage a human or natural right? There are some who say that since it is sanctioned by government, in that sense it’s not. However, marriage is an ancient institution that predates recorded history and government as we know it, so we can also say that government did not create marriage but simply imposed itself on it and regulates it.
In addition, fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/

Furthermore The Legal Information Institute states”Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process. Laws limiting these rights generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional. Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include the right to marry and the right to privacy, which includes a right to contraception and the right to interstate travel” http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fundamental_right

Beyond our own legal system The Universal Declaration on Human Rights, states in part:
Article 2 Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Everyone! Without distinction ……of ……”.other status”

Article 7 All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Equal protection under the law! Sound familiar? It’s also in the constitution.

Is there room for interpretation with respect to marriage? Maybe. Does it matter? No! Because most rights that people enjoy and take for granted in this country, the rights guaranteed in the constitution are legal rights.

As of this writing, 15 states and Washington DC have said that same sex marriage is a legal right and by the time you blink again there are likely to be more. And while the SCOTUS stopped just short of saying that it’s a legal right, they did say that legally married same sex couples have a right federal benefits. The fact that marriage for gays is not yet a legal right in all jurisdictions is merely a function of the fact that the law is imperfect and not always fair. Because it’s imperfect we must continue to strive to improve it.

Still not convinced? Let me ask this….If it’s not a right, what is it? The only possible answer is “privilege” What is a privilege? It’s something that you have to earn. Driving is a privilege. You have to study the rules and take a road test. You do not have to study and take a test to qualify for a marriage license. While both rights and privileges can be forfeited under certain circumstances-commit a crime and lose your right freedom/ drive badly and lose your driving privileges-they are by no means the same thing, except that the bar, for taking away a right is set much higher. We can only conclude that marriage is not a privilege and therefore is a right. Remember, rights are from birth. When a ten your old asks if she can get married someday, her parent can say “sure” ….unless she means her girlfriend, and then, if she lives in the wrong place she will have to be told “maybe” and it will hurt
So please, please, please, get over it.

 

Update!! Breaking: Hawaii House Passes Same-Sex Marriage, To Become 16th Equality State.....http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.co...-state/politics/2013/11/09/78402#.Un6LLEko6tU

Told you not to blink

 

Regular "straight" marriage is not a constitutionally guaranteed right. Why should "gay marriage" be such a "right?" Any activity that requires a "license" or official permission by government IS NOT a RIGHT by definition!

 

How is my right to freely associate with people, choose one as a mate, and then engage in a solemn ceremony to indicate to others my choice, NOT a right? It doesn't matter if the govt confers benefits for this action. Everyone has a right to marry without a govt agent saying they can't. The fact that govts around the world offer varying benefits to marriage, some of them monetary, doesn't make a difference. Humans have a right to choose a mate and marry them.

 

The fact that it requires a license does not mean that it's not a right. No one is turned down for a license as long as they are unrelated ( defined differently in different states) consenting adults and not married to anyone else. ( and in a dwindling number of states....not marrying someone of the same sex) It may not be specified in the constitution but many rights that we enjoy every day are not. If it’s not a right, what is it? The only possible answer is “privilege” What is a privilege? It’s something that you have to earn. Driving is a privilege. You have to study the rules and take a road test. You do not have to study and take a test to qualify for a marriage license. While both rights and privileges can be forfeited under certain circumstances-commit a crime and lose your right freedom/ drive badly and lose your driving privileges-they are by no means the same thing, except that the bar, for taking away a right is set much higher. We can only conclude that marriage is not a privilege and therefore is a right. Remember, rights are from birth. When a ten your old asks if she can get married someday, her parent can say “sure” ….unless she means her girlfriend, and then, if she lives in the wrong place she will have to be told “maybe” and it will hurt

 

"Marriage" is societal recognition of an established franchise. Two people can freely associate and have any ceremony they wish, but they are not "married" unless that ceremony is sanctioned and recognized by government. I guess they can be "intertwined" but not "married..."

 

In general, I'm sure you are incorrect. I'm with most people in realizing and accepting that marriage is a "fundamental right". Now, that may not be the case in every nation or individual mind... but legally, I'm very sure I'm correct.

And just about any layman or lawyer generally understands why you're very likely 'wrong' (overall). So be it.

 

You're right. But convincing homophobic AMERICANS otherwise in a more complete fashion, will take 50-100 more years.

 

Rights are from birth and for the INDIVDIUAL. There is nothing INDIVIDUAL about marriage. Rights are not "group" oriented in nature. One only can marry if they can find someone who will be their spouse, AND find another to marry them. Then they must be legally qualified to be "married," or for the government to recognize the union. 10 year old boys can't marry 40 year old men. There are restrictions put on the franchise by government. Government does not issue a "license" or give their permission for the privilege unless ALL requirements are met. If you want to say you have a "right" to marry after ALL conditions are met for the privilege, or to get government permission by my guest. A true "right" is something an individual can do on their own with no permission at all from anyone else, least of all some government official. To say "marriage" is a "right" is to redefinition the term, which means the argument one would be trying to make is lost...

 

Still, societies change. And THIS one (America) is doing just that, 'changing'. (It's no overnight kind of thing either.)

 

You're barking up a dead and ugly tree. People generally know better than what you're communicating overall. Even so, I accept that some still want to argue with you about it.

 

It's like that old comedy genius George Carlin said: "There are no such thing as rights. What we have are privileges. And they can al be taken away"

IMO two of the most stupid concepts ever to come out of humanity are the notions of personal ownership and personal rights. Both of these premises require a false supposition of control over nature and the universe. You might say you own a piece of land, but what if a more technologically proficient alien race suddenly appears and takes it off you? You're going to find out that you didn't really own it at all.

The same goes for rights. You can have rights relative to a particular ideology or social system, but nature can swipe those away in 30 seconds by grinding a couple of tectonic plates beneath your feet.

 

The courts are wrong by definition. We all enjoy the freedom of speech. One can say whatever they want whenever they want as long as it does not harm others (falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater). People only need permits, or a "license" when they wish to speak in a venue that they don't own, like a park. One can say anything they like in their own home for example without a license BECAUSE freedom of speech is a right. Marriage NEEDS a Licensee no matter where the ceremony is performed. A license is by definition "permission" from government. Name a true right that requires permission from government each-and-every-time...

 

The Supreme Court says marriage is a right

 

You're grasping at straws trying to pretend that marriage is not a qualified privilege, just like a drivers license is. The only difference between the two is the types of qualifications required. But since no two types of qualified privileges have identical qualifications, you can't use varying qualifications to say that one is a privilege and one is a right. In doing so, you're just cherry-picking one over the other, with no logical reason to do so.

 

Even if THIS society changes, and "accepts" and "allows" gay marriage, such marriage will STILL be a PRIVLDIGE, as is any legal "marriage" regardless of its definition ...

 

Okay then. Meanwhile, people will fight LEGALLY and likely win in opposition to what you're believing. Why, because it is something scores of human beings want and I say, rightly so.

There isn't much else to say about that.

 

Hear! Hear! Nicely put! Thank you!

 

What's the practical effect? (I'd say it's gay marriage along with the other. So be it.)

BTW, it's not as though this society 'hasn't' accepted gay marriage; essentially, it has.

 

Name a Natural Right for which government permission is needed...

 

Certainly, there are some 'qualifiers' to consider, but being a homosexual couple no longer disqualifies those people (absolutely) by default. That is as it should be, as most Americans now view it. Makes sense to me.

 

Perhaps, but again as long as a license is needed, or as long as government permission is NEEDED "gay" or "straight" marriage IS A PRVLIDGE...

 

I think you've lost your argument, in general.

Gay marriage is legal and becoming legal in more and more States. There is noting bad or wrong about that (as most Americans view it).