• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gay Marriage is Not a Right

Brooks

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Messages
1,131
Reaction score
130
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
In reality, NO marriage is a right.

Whether it's hunting, fishing, driving a car or selling food from a pushcart in NYC, the state issues licenses to permit us to engage in activities that are privileges, not rights.

Driving, for example, is not a right. The state has an interest in our fulfilling the required qualifications before we are issued a license. As with all other licenses we have to qualify to be granted one and it's entirely up to the state to determine what those qualifications may be.

I am not saying any of this as a reason to abolish gay marriage, I just think words and concepts are important.
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
According to 3 different SCOTUS cases yes, there is a Right to marry. Loving v Virginia (1967), Zablocki v Redhail (1978), Turner v Safley (1987).

Also you're arguement fails when you consider that there is a right to carry and own guns and yet you have to have a permit in order to carry those same guns. In pretty much all the states a CCW license is required and in some states a permit is required to even carry openly.
 

sbrettt

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2013
Messages
2,724
Reaction score
783
Location
Prospect park, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
In reality, NO marriage is a right.

Whether it's hunting, fishing, driving a car or selling food from a pushcart in NYC, the state issues licenses to permit us to engage in activities that are privileges, not rights.

Driving, for example, is not a right. The state has an interest in our fulfilling the required qualifications before we are issued a license. As with all other licenses we have to qualify to be granted one and it's entirely up to the state to determine what those qualifications may be.

I am not saying any of this as a reason to abolish gay marriage, I just think words and concepts are important.

I disagree, but I think I get where you're coming from. Do you think gay people should have the "privilege" of marriage?
 

Paschendale

Uncanny
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 3, 2010
Messages
12,510
Reaction score
12,605
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
1. The ninth amendment states that merely because a right is not enumerated does not mean we don't have it. Our default position, with any right, is that we have it.
2. We possess a general liberty interest. Everything is essentially a right unless there's justification to restrict it, like requiring licenses to do all the things you mention, including marrying. You still have a right to do them, just with limits, all of which must still pass constitutional muster, even if it's just a rational basis test.
3. Restricting marriage to just heterosexual unions does not meet a rational basis test, let alone the intermediate, heightened, or strict scrutiny test that would be required for it. Which of those tests would be required is still unsettled law, but that such a restriction fails to meet even rational basis was the result of the Prop 8 cases in California and is likely to form the basis of not only the majority opinion throughout the states, but of a federal standard if/when there is one.
4. Completely unrestricted rights, which I presume you are referring to, functionally do not exist. Every right is subject to some limitations. Even the second amendment, despite how much gun proponents like to bring up "shall not be infringed" as opposed to "congress shall make no law", is subject to restrictions that meet the appropriate level of constitutional scrutiny.

This has been your daily dose of basic constitutional law. Thanks for playing. And be glad it's not November yet so I can't charge you for this.
 

Sykes

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2013
Messages
1,296
Reaction score
1,066
Location
Mmm. Bacon.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If there is a group of people who cannot enjoy the same ability to marry the person they love, then that's wrong, and the rest is just semantics.
 

specklebang

Discount Philosopher
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
11,524
Reaction score
6,769
Location
Las Vegas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
In reality, NO marriage is a right.

Whether it's hunting, fishing, driving a car or selling food from a pushcart in NYC, the state issues licenses to permit us to engage in activities that are privileges, not rights.

Driving, for example, is not a right. The state has an interest in our fulfilling the required qualifications before we are issued a license. As with all other licenses we have to qualify to be granted one and it's entirely up to the state to determine what those qualifications may be.

I am not saying any of this as a reason to abolish gay marriage, I just think words and concepts are important.

Should the State be required to issue drivers licenses to gay people? Apparently. So, why not everything else?

I was married once and I don't recommend it to anyone but.....
 

Montecresto

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2013
Messages
24,561
Reaction score
5,507
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Should the State be required to issue drivers licenses to gay people? Apparently. So, why not everything else?

I was married once and I don't recommend it to anyone but.....

Too funny man!
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
111,073
Reaction score
56,982
Location
Bradenton Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
In reality, NO marriage is a right.

Whether it's hunting, fishing, driving a car or selling food from a pushcart in NYC, the state issues licenses to permit us to engage in activities that are privileges, not rights.

Driving, for example, is not a right. The state has an interest in our fulfilling the required qualifications before we are issued a license. As with all other licenses we have to qualify to be granted one and it's entirely up to the state to determine what those qualifications may be.

I am not saying any of this as a reason to abolish gay marriage, I just think words and concepts are important.

US law disagrees with you. As pointed out, marriage has been declared a fundamental right repeatedly by the court system, including the Supreme Court. While you may not like it, marriage is a right here, and that fact is entirely uncontroversial.
 

joko104

Banned
Suspended
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
65,981
Reaction score
23,408
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
"Driving is not a right, it's a privilege" granted by government is a slogan burned into everyone - and it is absurd.
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,176
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
In reality, NO marriage is a right.

No marriage of any sort is a "natural" right.

There can be a societal right to marriage, varying in meaning in various societies, that is an off shoot of the natural right of association.

"Societal Right" and "privledge" are similar in nature, but slightly different. Both are creations of men through a social contract. However, the difference is generally where the power lies within the social contract. Typically, a societal right grants greater power upon the individual than society with the general notion that as long as the contract is intact then the individual can do said thing. On the flip side, a privledge typically is something where the society is granted greater power with the notion that the societal structure can bestow the ability upon individuals as it see's fit.

Theoritically, a societal right could not be fully removed without the destruction of said Social Contract, only limited. Where as a privledge could just stop being issued with the Social Contract still being upheld.




being that a "Societal Right" is one that the individual within society is promised by that social contract and is inherent while that contract remains, where as a "privledge" is one that the society is given the ability to allow or disallow to individuals within it while the contract remains.
 

Gardener

free market communist
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
26,657
Reaction score
15,929
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If there is a group of people who cannot enjoy the same ability to marry the person they love, then that's wrong, and the rest is just semantics.

But it just sounds so much better when a person's bigotry leads them to single out one small group to deny a certain privilege than it does to single them out to deny a right, Sykes.

It's like that privilege of drinking at a drinking fountain, right? Why those uppity dark-skinned folks got so worked up just because they wanted a certain privilege...... I mean, how DARE them!
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
"Driving is not a right, it's a privilege" granted by government is a slogan burned into everyone - and it is absurd.

Technically you do have a right to drive all you want without a license. So long as it is done on private property. It is when you start using government provided, maintained roads that you do not have a right to drive. That is the actual priviledge.

Edit: Or to say it better...the priviledge is in having the ability to drive on government provided and maintained roads.
 
Last edited:

TiredOfLife

Banned
Joined
Jul 31, 2013
Messages
2,817
Reaction score
582
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
In reality, NO marriage is a right.

Whether it's hunting, fishing, driving a car or selling food from a pushcart in NYC, the state issues licenses to permit us to engage in activities that are privileges, not rights.

Driving, for example, is not a right. The state has an interest in our fulfilling the required qualifications before we are issued a license. As with all other licenses we have to qualify to be granted one and it's entirely up to the state to determine what those qualifications may be.

I am not saying any of this as a reason to abolish gay marriage, I just think words and concepts are important.
The Right in this case is to be Equal Before The Law.
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
No marriage of any sort is a "natural" right.

There can be a societal right to marriage, varying in meaning in various societies, that is an off shoot of the natural right of association.

"Societal Right" and "privledge" are similar in nature, but slightly different. Both are creations of men through a social contract. However, the difference is generally where the power lies within the social contract. Typically, a societal right grants greater power upon the individual than society with the general notion that as long as the contract is intact then the individual can do said thing. On the flip side, a privledge typically is something where the society is granted greater power with the notion that the societal structure can bestow the ability upon individuals as it see's fit.

Theoritically, a societal right could not be fully removed without the destruction of said Social Contract, only limited. Where as a privledge could just stop being issued with the Social Contract still being upheld.




being that a "Societal Right" is one that the individual within society is promised by that social contract and is inherent while that contract remains, where as a "privledge" is one that the society is given the ability to allow or disallow to individuals within it while the contract remains.

If you want to take this stance then ALL the Rights that we have are "Societal Rights". I don't buy that. ;)
 

TiredOfLife

Banned
Joined
Jul 31, 2013
Messages
2,817
Reaction score
582
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Technically you do have a right to drive all you want without a license. So long as it is done on private property. It is when you start using government provided, maintained roads that you do not have a right to drive. That is the actual priviledge.
Drive, no. Walk, ride a horse, skateboard, bike, and usually drive your lawnmower, yes. They are Public roads after all and none of those require a license.
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Drive, no. Walk, ride a horse, skateboard, bike, and usually drive your lawnmower, yes. They are Public roads after all and none of those require a license.

Thats because none of those have the damaging potential of a car. ;)
 

TiredOfLife

Banned
Joined
Jul 31, 2013
Messages
2,817
Reaction score
582
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Sorry, not going to get into a theological debate. But I will state that I believe rights to be fundemental. Not societal.
Well you can certainly state that. It makes no sense in the real world but you can. If they were fundemental, we wouldn't keeo going to court to try and figure them out and work out the exceptions to them. We do that, and so does everyone else. That points to Society not some other Source.
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well you can certainly state that. It makes no sense in the real world but you can. If they were fundemental, we wouldn't keeo going to court to try and figure them out and work out the exceptions to them. We do that, and so does everyone else. That points to Society not some other Source.

Actually a Right being fundemental means that the Right exists whether society accepts/allows it or not. Many Rights can be surpressed and even ignored but just because they are surpressed/ignored does not mean that they are not there. They just have to be fought for. One of the reasons that the old saying of "Fighting for your rights" exists.
 

TiredOfLife

Banned
Joined
Jul 31, 2013
Messages
2,817
Reaction score
582
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Actually a Right being fundemental means that the Right exists whether society accepts/allows it or not. Many Rights can be surpressed and even ignored but just because they are surpressed/ignored does not mean that they are not there. They just have to be fought for. One of the reasons that the old saying of "Fighting for your rights" exists.
Rights that you can't get enforced don't exist. It's not like it's a teapot on the moon and it's just really hard to get hot water to. When it's a right you can't get society to uphold, there is no teapot.
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Actually a Right being fundemental means that the Right exists whether society accepts/allows it or not. Many Rights can be surpressed and even ignored but just because they are surpressed/ignored does not mean that they are not there. They just have to be fought for. One of the reasons that the old saying of "Fighting for your rights" exists.

BTW, for an example of this look to miscegation laws (to keep in line with the thread ;) ).
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Rights that you can't get enforced don't exist. It's not like it's a teapot on the moon and it's just really hard to get hot water to. When it's a right you can't get society to uphold, there is no teapot.

Answered this in post 23 as an addendum to the post you responded to. ;) The right for a black man to marry a white woman was there...it just wasn't recognized by society. IE to put it in your vernacular...the tea pot was there...it was just with held from certain people.
 

TiredOfLife

Banned
Joined
Jul 31, 2013
Messages
2,817
Reaction score
582
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
BTW, for an example of this look to miscegation laws (to keep in line with the thread ;) ).
A good example of a law that was tossed because it made otherwise rightful people Unequal before the Law.
 
Top Bottom