The rights of the minority are not subject to a popular vote...

Indeed something is a privilege if it is only available to some and not others. I suppose from that the question is , are people happy with the privilege of marriage being granted to some but not others?

A white and black couple could not marry, once upon a time. That was changed. The only thing that stops same-sex couples being able to marry is legislation and that can be changed. The question is, should it be changed? I say yes, you may disagree, but the legislature has the decision.

- - - Updated - - -

Fair enough, but any jurisdiction can, if it chooses, extend that right.

 

Yes it is a right at least in the US and other major nations that signed the UN Declaration of Human Rights Section 16.1. So marriage is a RIGHT the world declared as much.

And you want a treaty we signed and ratified. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in Section 23. It was Ratified it so again Marriage is a Right but its neutral to gay marriage. So its a Right to marriage we agreed to by Constitutional treaty so is part of the US Constitution. Learn some things before spewing nonsense. Unless a treaty ratified and signed isn't legitimate?

So as a RIGHT with the 14th Amendment equal protection clause thanks to that being in the US Constitution will allow the Supreme Court to open up marriage to gays, and yes maybe group forms of marriage as long as the marriage state is a right for opposite sex couples. True it has sadly no international enforcement and compliance authority but is fact still law of the land the courts properly can use it its law of the land just like the rest of the US Constitution.

 

Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington—as well as the District of Columbia and three Native American tribes - are amongst those who have advanced, and Americans continue to evidence progress at a truly impressive pace.

As with Emancipation, Women's Suffrage, and the repeal of state anti-miscegenation laws, there lingers an embittered minority who rage at such change, but equality continues to be achieved.

A respected conservative, Ted Olsen, Assistant Attorney General under Ronald Reagan Solicitor General under George W Bush, attempted to explain it to the malcontents in a piece that appeared in Newsweek magazine in January, 2010:

 

Not if they cant show that the distinctions used are rationally related to serving a legitimate governmental interest. Marriage limited to heterosexual couples is rationally related to the legitimate governmental interest in reducing the number of single mothers on their own with absent or unknown fathers and increasing the number of children with the benefit of both their parents in the home. What legitimate governmental interest is only served in the case of heterosexual and homosexual couples?

 

Only marriage between "men and women" is a human right. But you give a beautiful demonstration of how completely detatched from reality you have become, believing the UN has declared same sex marriage to be a right.

 

And the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in Section 23 the wording is type of marriage neutral but the state of marriage is a RIGHT and that was ratified as a treaty. Now the dispensation of marriage is left to the states and in our nation the Courts and the with precedents on the 14th Amendment could extend gay marriage in the USA. The issue is simple if opposite sex couples get special treatment and same sex couples are excluded its not equal and marriage is a RIGHT we agreed as a nation it was with a standing on par with the US Constitution that is what happens when you ratify a treaty. You do get that?

 

Nope. "The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized."

 

Now show us the word 'only' in there

 

Only marriage between "men and women" is a human right. But you give a beautiful demonstration of how completely detatched from reality you have become, believing the UN has declared same sex marriage to be a right.

 

Excuse me? If one needs a "marriage license" or official permission from the government by definition it is a privilege. Perhaps you should "Learn some things before spewing nonsense." Name another "RIGHT" for which you need a license, or formal permission from government? I can only think of one, and that would be driving, or using private property to travel on public roadways. There was no "riding license" for riding a house on such property "BEFORE," and the unlicensed automobile driver occurred BEFORE the Driver's license. Therefore, it looks like government usurped the RIGHT to drive. So "driving" still appears to be an unalienable RIGHT that has been stolen or alienated by government. Marriage is not a "right" and never has been by any definition. Wake up! No matter what you "think" or told to "think" by your Parrot Masters, if you need permission to do something IT IS NOT A RIGHT. Now, do you need a "license" (official government permission) to get "married," yes or no?

This is what I mean by the LEFT degrading and confusing the language. They have some of their followers BELIEVING that something is a "RIGHT" even though they MUST first acquire government permission to so exercise that "RIGHT" Then they tell ME I should "Learn some things before spewing nonsense."

 

Yep, once you get government permission making even "marriage between 'men and women' " by definition a privilege...

 

Before the next person posts that "marriage" is a "right" I want someone to explain to me and the rest of the posters on this thread why official government permission (a marriage license) is needed to exercise the right of "marriage?"

See, I believe if the LEFT had to use real words with real honest definitions they would have absolutely nothing to say...

What "same sex couples" want is not "marriage" by definition, and "marriage" by definition is not a "RIGHT." They want special privileges simply for being homosexual couples...

 

Marriage was a right because governments required marriage for an unrelated man and woman to have sex or cohabitate in the same home. Procreation and founding a family is a right so people had a right to marriage.

 

Then pray tell us all why a marriage "license" or official government permission is needed to marry? What other RIGHTS need a license, or official government permission?

 

This is what makes me angry. This is the United States and WE make OUR own laws. The LEFTISTS can't get enough AMERICANS to support their tripe which they want to make law so they go to the UN and get the UN to pass some sort of treaty. Then the US signs off on it, sometimes actually ratifying it, sometimes not. Either way LEFTISTS claim it to be the "Law of the Land." Why? Because Article VI, paragraph 2 states the following in part?

The Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made
in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; ​

See, the LEFT simply wants to FORCE Americans to accept THEIR ideas of governance. If their proposed "law" was popular enough real AMERICANS would approve, and they would not NEED UN diplomats! They go through the UN to get some "treaty" that then becomes supposedly Constitutional Law bypassing the legitimate AMERICAN amendment process and regular law process. The trouble is the LEFT rejects the Constitution. Either they accept the entire Constitution or they accept none of it. If they accept the Constitution they must accept Article 1, Section 8 and the Tenth Amendment which prohibits the unconstitutional Democrat Welfare State, and their Social Engineering Schemes only allowed after Democrat FDR threatened the Supreme Court in 1937 so they would stop ruling his "New Deal" unconstitutional. Google the "Switch in Time that Saved Nine." So if the LEFT would like to claim adherence to any treaty is mandatory since the treaty becomes the de facto "supreme law of the land" they must also acknowledge all ways their own party has violated the Constitution for the last 100 years and agree to dismantle such violations, or dismantle the Democrat party as their entire Welfare State and Social Engineering schemes must also go. Either the entirety of the Constitution is the "Supreme law of the Land" or it is not. Democrats and the LEFT don't get to pick and choose what part of the Constitution is actually relevant! What sort of country have they created for us? What kind of country have we let them have... ?

 

All the laws that require men and women to marry in order to live together or even legally have sex, have been repealed or no longer enforced. I would argue that while cohabitating with the person of your choice, sexual relations with the person of your choice and procreation and the founding of a family are all still a right. The government license for doing so is not.

 

What? You didn't' answer my question. If a marriage "license" or even getting married "in order to live together or even legally have sex" is irrelevant, and is a right why the fuss over "same sex marriage" if it is not a ploy for homosexual people to gain special privileges simply for being homosexual?

 

Lol, can't seem to find it can you?

 

How do you know someone is born straight?

 

You need permits to buy specific weapons like automatic firearms. You also need
specific permits if you wish to hold a gathering on public property. That's just to name a few.

 

Of course it is a ploy. They are trying to win more "respect" from society for homosexuals and some "dignity" the courts seem to think they lack. I suspect it will bring neither.

 

Found and quoted. "Men and women" have a right to marriage and "found a family". Not a right to adopt a family. Not a right to pay someone else to create you a family but everyone has the right to procreate and found their own family. They just need someone of the opposite sex to do so.

 

Still can't seem to find it can you? lol

 

Hmmm. You bring up interesting points. First of all, unless you accept buying weapons is a "right" it matters little that a license to do so is needed. I think it is not a "right," but a “property right,” or the "right" to spend your money how you wish. The Constitution only acknowledges the "right" to "keep and bear," but not own a weapon. That of course is an acknowledgment that one must BUY the arm themselves. If everyone had a right to own weapons the government must then hand them out as they are to guarantee rights. I believe buying a weapon is a property right so in theory there should be no licensing (permission from government) required. Democrats started all that as they sought to alienate unalienable rights from We the People. “Gun Control” was started by Democrats in the South as they wished to prohibit firearm ownership to newly freed slaves. Perhaps we can agree that getting a license to buy certain weapons is NOW a privilege, but WAS and SHOULD BE a right, and IS a right that was stolen by Democrats and made into a privilege.

Second of all, You have the freedom of Speech as an unalienable “right” but no one has the “right” to be heard. You do need permits to exercise your right to free speech on land or in a venue you don’t own as such an expression is a privilege. If you own the area no permit is needed.

Marriage is very different. Marriage is not a stolen right made into a privilege by Democrats. Marriage has ALWAYS been a privilege, and a state endorsed institution. Two willing people can’t just get married without getting a “license” or state permission. They also must find someone to marry them, someone with “power vested.” Whoever does the marrying must be somehow certified, or must be granted PERMISSION to conduct the ceremony. Everywhere you look in the process, “marriage” can be called nothing BUT a privilege.

 

Marriage is whatever a society deems it to be because marriage is socially determined. There is no logical objection to marriage being between two people of the same sex. There is no logical objection to polygamous or polyandry marriage or someone marrying their pet dog or a favourite chair if society deems it is allowable.

The discussion concerning rights and privileges is, with respect, missing the point that society determines what is a marriage. Not only that but society can also designate the purpose of marriage and if that purpose isn't met by the proposers then they can be denied permission to marry. At Roman law in the time of the Republic, marriage was a religious duty, not a secular right. A male could marry at 14, a female at 12. Marriage could be denied to individuals and marriages could be annulled by the state without the request and in the face of opposition from the marriage partners.

Some places – my country included – do not permit individuals of the same sex to marry. That shows that if marriage is a right then it's a right denied to a minority. The reasons for government denying a right to a minority must be understood though. In my country our federal government will not countenance marriage between same-sex couples because it is terrified of a backlash from what it perceives as a conservative electorate and from what it perceives as powerful conservative lobby groups. Other governments aren't such gutless wonders and have defined marriage to include same-sex couples.