Marriage isn't a human right

The Militia Act of 1903 appears to define the Militia identically to 10 USC 301, except it says 18 instead of 17.

 

It's all irrelevant since "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, (STILL) shall not be infringed."

 

Paragraph (2) of DC v. Heller disagrees with you.

 

Oh, it's never irrelevent. That line can be taken many ways. That is the way of the constititon. It's written to need interpretation.

For example. The government could ban all guns except a single shot derringer, and technically the right of the people to bear arms would not be infringed, simply limited to a certain type of arms.

 

Seem like this topic got derailed.....how did it become about guns?

 

Only a well regulated militia (of the United States) has literal recourse to our Second Amendment, simply because the Second Article of Amendment is Not a Constitution unto itself.

 

It started out as a argument over whether or not the supreme court had the authority to interpret the constitution, and rule that marriage is a right, and it turned into a debate over whether they had the authority to interpret other parts of the constitution as well.

 

Judicial review by the Supreme Court was established by Marbury v Madison in 1803 It was a politically messy case but the ruling has stood the test of time.

 

We signed an international treaty where we declared marriage a right so its a right, a treaty has when ratified the same standing as the US Constitution that trumps the Supreme Court and every law on the books but we left the type and application to nations. We could not for example not recognize marriage as a state concern (no tax breaks, special benefits) but could leave it as a religious act apart and respect our obligation.

 

I do not think your view is held by the majority of Americans. Most people don't consider marriage trivial. In fact, if you told most people at age 18, that they would never be married, ever, then they would consider that a serious violation of their rights. But somehow, you think it's ok to tell a group of millions exactly that.

 

Natural rights are not trivial.

 

Wasnt too long ago that living with someone, unrelated to you, of the opposite sex was against the law. Or sex even outside of marriage was illegal. The Lovings of Loving v Virginia werent arrested for getting married in Washington DC. They were arrested for living together as husband and wife in Virginia, without a valid marriage license.
As the US Supreme court pointed out-

Or as the UN declaration states

There is a right to choose your mate and create a family.

 

Well, I for one am certainly opposed to any law that tries to limit the freedom of adults to live together if they so choose, regardless of marriage. I don't even see why the government should be in the marriage business. Scrap it, though keep regulations respecting communal property, custody rights and so forth, so that people in any such relationship who end up in a dispute can still seek legal recourse the same as couples do now. Just take marriage as an institution out of the picture from a legal standpoint.

 

I'm still trying to figure out how polygamy isn't legal.

 

Wouldn't give a woman who has agreed to bear a mans children much security if he could at any time dissolve the relationship without any obligation to her.

 

Don't need marriage as such to have that. Already men end up paying support to women if they sire children and then separate. Communal property is just that with or without a marriage license as well.

Leave marriage to the churches and the individuals.

 

I believe that the Lovings were arrested for violating Va.'s ban on interracial marriage

 

There is no communal property without marriage and if they sire children, their only obligation is to the children, not the woman.

 

It wasnt against the law to go to DC and get married. It was ONLY against the law for them to THEN return

 

Well, when the Sureme Court rules themselves power, the only way to change it is with amendment, and they are hard to pass.

It's not always good either. Such as with Citizens United.

 

Does anyone think that a heterosexual couple would not be upset if told that they did not have the right to get married for some arbitrary reason? The question of calling it "a basic human right" is moot and has no bearing on the question of equality between gays and others.

 

But is it an American social right? Doesn't denying same-sex couples the right to marry send a clear message that homosexual relationships are, in the end, not tolerated by American society. There is a clear political agenda being carried out on both sides of this issue.

 

There is a million miles between not tolerating a relationship, such as the old laws criminalizing sodomy, and not giving them tax breaks and governmental entitlements of marriage.
Marriage hasnt been limited to men and women in order to exclude homosexuals. It has beeen limited to men and women because only men and women have the potential of procreation.

 

Neither is insurance, food, shelter, and extra spending cash for beer and cigs - unless, of course, you're a leftist.

 

Limiting marriage to heterosexual couples isnt arbitrary. Only heterosexual couples procreate. Its biology. ON THE OTHER HAND limiting marriage to heterosexual and homosexual couples because they are the only couples who have sex with each other WOULD be arbitrary. ANY two people whether they are sexual or not could benefit from the advantages of a stable home formed by a marriage. The presence of a sexual relationship is irrelevant.