Gay Marriage is Not a Right

[Brooks]

I rather hate that whole "marriage is not a right" argument. It's bull****. If one group has it, and the other group doesn't, then an injustice has occurred, and needs to be remedied.

YES IT DOES.
But don't panic. There's a system in place.
The system is more important than any single issue which is why we have the best system for preventing systemic corruption.

 

[Brooks]

Brooks...don't mind if I jump in do ya?

While the following S.C. case was about interracial marriage, the same NOW applies to same sex marriage (which I agree with btw...). Just thought I'd offer the following...see if clears anything up for you regarding marriage and rights:

Rather than make you go look for it, this is a prior post:

Disneydude: Actually you are wrong. The Supreme Court has recognized that marriage is one of the most fundamental rights that human beings have. Sorry to blow your premise.

Brooks: No need to apologize, I'm sorry to repeat this to people who've read all the posts to this point.

The Supreme Court has recognized that marriage is a right, but by the time it filters through the states, the state burdens this "right" with qualifiers and criteria. When you fulfill these obligations they issue you a license. Once the state does all that, the activity has become a privilege.

A right is something you automatically have until it is taken away.
A privilege is something you have to earn and/or qualify for.

Can you think of any licensed activity that is a right?

 

[disneydude]

No need to apologize, I'm sorry to repeat this to people who've read all the posts to this point.

The Supreme Court has recognized that marriage is a right, but by the time it filters through the states, the state burdens this "right" with qualifiers and criteria. When you fulfill these obligations they issue you a license. Once the state does all that, the activity has become a privilege.

A right is something you automatically have until it is taken away.
A privilege is something you have to earn and/or qualify for.

Can you think of any licensed activity that is a right?

Just because there is licensing and "Qualifiers" does not convert it from a right to a privilege.

 

[AGENT J]

BAsed on the above perception you have of yourself, why the need to insult?

1.)there was no insult in my post
2.) so you got nothing then? thats what I thought

 

[Removable Mind]

Rather than make you go look for it, this is a prior post:

Disneydude: Actually you are wrong. The Supreme Court has recognized that marriage is one of the most fundamental rights that human beings have. Sorry to blow your premise.

Brooks: No need to apologize, I'm sorry to repeat this to people who've read all the posts to this point.

The Supreme Court has recognized that marriage is a right, but by the time it filters through the states, the state burdens this "right" with qualifiers and criteria. When you fulfill these obligations they issue you a license. Once the state does all that, the activity has become a privilege.

A right is something you automatically have until it is taken away.
A privilege is something you have to earn and/or qualify for.

Can you think of any licensed activity that is a right?

Well, there's rarely any aspect of our lives, which government doesn't at least try to intervene. For instance, the first amendment has its limitations. Actually lot of our rights aren't without limitations or some type of applied conditions.

Thus I disagree that applied conditions or limiters by states makes marriage a privilege rather than a right. Example: Do you believe that it's okay for say a 10 year old child to marry at will?

Licenses for marriage requirements apply conditions not prevent. Different states might set parameters such as age without consent, a few days waiting period (generally 3 to 5 days}, or require blood tests as a public safety issue (about 3 or 4 states still B.T's)...but the test in and of itself isn't going to prevent persons from getting married. If a person's B.T. shows he or she has a STD, they might be required to get treatment. But in the end, none of these factors prohibit marriage...only applied conditions which might slight slow down the process...but not prevent.

I would guess that if a couple who lives in one state doesn't like the states civil regulations regarding marriage...can simply go to a neighboring state that doesn't impose the same "conditions" in order to get married. Some states require a parent signature if under the age of 18. Some are like 16 years of age.

The above said, people don't actually have to have a license to consider themselves married. Informal marriage or common law marriage has been around for eons.

The problems that revolves around formal marriage vs informal marriage might be the implementing of restrictions for getting certain types of benefits through work or government if persons choose informal rather than formal.

You mentioned "drivers license". Not having a licenses does prohibit from driving. Driving is a privilege not a right. Yes, a person can drive without a license, but at the risk of legal consequences.

But let's not get silly and use examples like...well, if marriage is right, I guess person can marry his or her pet goat. Or a person can marry his or her brother, sister, or parent because not being able to marry them prohibits individual right for the pursuit of happiness. As you know, those types of marriages...well, might result in the birth of a seriously genetically damaged child.

But who knows...maybe one day intraspecies marriage might be possible. That isn't my thing...but...hey, just saying.

 

[Brooks]

Just because there is licensing and "Qualifiers" does not convert it from a right to a privilege.

Actually, it does.

A right is something you are granted automatically. Under certain circumstances it may be taken away from you.
A privilege is something for which you must qualify. Very often these activities will require a license.

Marriage, requiring a license and having certain qualifications, fits into the latter category, as do all other licensed activities.

 

[disneydude]

Actually, it does.A right is something you are granted automatically. Under certain circumstances it may be taken away from you.A privilege is something for which you must qualify. Very often these activities will require a license.Marriage, requiring a license and having certain qualifications, fits into the latter category, as do all other licensed activities.

The definition you came up with is flawed. Placing licensing requirements does not transform a right to a privilege. Additionally no right is absolute.

 

[Brooks]

1. Well, there's rarely any aspect of our lives, which government doesn't at least try to intervene. For instance, the first amendment has its limitations. Actually lot of our rights aren't without limitations or some type of applied conditions.
Thus I disagree that applied conditions or limiters by states makes marriage a privilege rather than a right. Example: Do you believe that it's okay for say a 10 year old child to marry at will?
Licenses for marriage requirements apply conditions not prevent. Different states might set parameters such as age without consent, a few days waiting period (generally 3 to 5 days}, or require blood tests as a public safety issue (about 3 or 4 states still B.T's)...but the test in and of itself isn't going to prevent persons from getting married. If a person's B.T. shows he or she has a STD, they might be required to get treatment. But in the end, none of these factors prohibit marriage...only applied conditions which might slight slow down the process...but not prevent.
I would guess that if a couple who lives in one state doesn't like the states civil regulations regarding marriage...can simply go to a neighboring state that doesn't impose the same "conditions" in order to get married. Some states require a parent signature if under the age of 18. Some are like 16 years of age.

2. The above said, people don't actually have to have a license to consider themselves married. Informal marriage or common law marriage has been around for eons.
The problems that revolves around formal marriage vs informal marriage might be the implementing of restrictions for getting certain types of benefits through work or government if persons choose informal rather than formal.

3. You mentioned "drivers license". Not having a licenses does prohibit from driving. Driving is a privilege not a right. Yes, a person can drive without a license, but at the risk of legal consequences.

4. But let's not get silly and use examples like...well, if marriage is right, I guess person can marry his or her pet goat. Or a person can marry his or her brother, sister, or parent because not being able to marry them prohibits individual right for the pursuit of happiness. As you know, those types of marriages...well, might result in the birth of a seriously genetically damaged child.

5. But who knows...maybe one day intraspecies marriage might be possible. That isn't my thing...but...hey, just saying.

1. I'll use the First Amendment as our example of a right since you brought it up.
You have freedom of speech unless and until it interferes with the rights of others. You may lose it under certain conditions (maybe as a non-disclosure agreement to a legal settlement).
The rights-of-others business are what we consider exceptions (the theater thingy).
------------------------------
Licensed activities, on the other hand, are only given to you if you qualify based on specific state criteria.
You don't start from a premise of automatically having a license. You don't have one until you earn it.
Getting or not getting a license is not even based on infringing on the rights of others.

The two are fundamentally different in their award and their application.

2. If that were true and universally accepted simply tell gay-marriage advocates that they don't need a marriage license.
While what you say may be factually true, it has nothing to do with what we've been talking about here.

3. Again, yes a person can physically drive a vehicle, but is that really what we've been talking about here.
For the sake of this discussion, doesn't the statement "driving a car requires a license" imply that we mean "driving a care legally requires a license"?
Let's not muddle it.

4. I won't lay silly statements that you've never made at your doorstep if you do the same for me. It's a deal.

5. Intraspecies marriage is already the norm.


You're concise and thoughtful. Thank you.

 

[Brooks]

The definition you came up with is flawed. Placing licensing requirements does not transform a right to a privilege. Additionally no right is absolute.

Yes, it does make it a privilege. You are engaging in an activity if the state deems you worthy. That's a privilege.
What's flawed is our use of the word right when it comes to such things as guns and marriage.

Correct, no right is absolute.

 

[Removable Mind]

1. I'll use the First Amendment as our example of a right since you brought it up.
You have freedom of speech unless and until it interferes with the rights of others. You may lose it under certain conditions (maybe as a non-disclosure agreement to a legal settlement).
The rights-of-others business are what we consider exceptions (the theater thingy).
------------------------------
Licensed activities, on the other hand, are only given to you if you qualify based on specific state criteria.
You don't start from a premise of automatically having a license. You don't have one until you earn it.
Getting or not getting a license is not even based on infringing on the rights of others.

The two are fundamentally different in their award and their application.

2. If that were true and universally accepted simply tell gay-marriage advocates that they don't need a marriage license.
While what you say may be factually true, it has nothing to do with what we've been talking about here.

3. Again, yes a person can physically drive a vehicle, but is that really what we've been talking about here.
For the sake of this discussion, doesn't the statement "driving a car requires a license" imply that we mean "driving a care legally requires a license"?
Let's not muddle it.

4. I won't lay silly statements that you've never made at your doorstep if you do the same for me. It's a deal.

5. Intraspecies marriage is already the norm.


You're concise and thoughtful. Thank you.

Well, looks like to me that you're saying the same thing I said with regard to the First Amendment. I think we are both aware that "rights" don't come without some form of limitation or conditions...and even when it applies to government not abridging certain rights.

We're all subject to losing our individual rights when we abuse or abandon the rights afforded to all. That usually means that we've infringed on the rights of others in a significant way.

If you look at the civil marriage laws of the "majority" of states...they are virtually automatic. The common limiter or condition is "age of consent" related. Again, would you support a 10 year old to, with free will, marry?

As I stated, those states that have conditional provisions don't ultimately deprive people's right to marry, they very briefly delay the time persons can marry. The few States that have a waiting period provision...offer a waiver. Even the very few states that require blood test...have waivers, which state they might face certain consequences if they have communicable health issues that cause injury to the person they marry or others.

In the end...if person's don't like the civil laws regarding marriage...then they can enter into an informal or common law marriage. Or...they can go to a neighbor state.

Marriage not starting out with the premise of "zero" conditions doesn't negate the fundamental right of marriage based on U.S. constitutional provisions.

Voting is a right, but not without conditions or limiters...such as age.

 

[Jerry]

What two consenting adults experience is none of my concern.

If your spouse consents to adultery you may change your mind.

 

[maquiscat]

But let's not get silly and use examples like...well, if marriage is right, I guess person can marry his or her pet goat. Or a person can marry his or her brother, sister, or parent because not being able to marry them prohibits individual right for the pursuit of happiness. As you know, those types of marriages...well, might result in the birth of a seriously genetically damaged child.

Flawed argument as there are other conditions that can result in higher chances of genetic damage/birth defects than consangous breeding, yet are not made illegal. This is even before one looks at how the argument can never apply to those who are incapable of producing a child (either physically or by being a same gendered couple) or to non-consangous couples who are legally related.

But who knows...maybe one day intraspecies marriage might be possible. That isn't my thing...but...hey, just saying.

If we can ever find a non-human species capable of informed consent, it will become an issue, guaranteed.

 

[Removable Mind]

Flawed argument as there are other conditions that can result in higher chances of genetic damage/birth defects than consangous breeding, yet are not made illegal. This is even before one looks at how the argument can never apply to those who are incapable of producing a child (either physically or by being a same gendered couple) or to non-consangous couples who are legally related.

If we can ever find a non-human species capable of informed consent, it will become an issue, guaranteed.

I just hate it when my comments are flawed...it makes me feel...so dirty. Thanks anyway for pointing out my flawed argument.

Brooks posted that he is of the opinion that because civil laws in every state define eligibility conditions or limits related to applying for a marriage license - consequently marriage is a privilege not a right.

If marriage licenses worked like driver's licenses...I wonder how many people would engage in some specific behavior(s) in order for the state to take action to revoke their marriage license? But last I heard, the state can't do that.

However, my post to Brooks regarding marriage being a right was to make note that marriage is a right not without conditions or limits...as is with so many of our rights.

My point regarding marrying a parent, sibling, or perhaps one's own child would be among those conditions or limits of our right to marry, but still didn't negate the fact that marriage is a right, which has been affirmed by the S.C.

And my comment wasn't meant to be a precise depiction of consequences regarding the reasons marrying close kin isn't lawful. But what I posted is indeed a factor. Not the only factor.

Even cave people understood the problems with inbreeding. Oh..wait, that's a flawed commit. Sorry. And while I don't doubt there are other factors that might be a greater cause for genetic damage/birth defects...they didn't seem to be important enough to add to the exchange.

I know you're just dying to...so give us the unedited, unabridged, and unflawed version of why individuals don't marry a parent, sibling, or even their or child...so please indulge us.

Oh, and...

Who knows...maybe goats will evolve enough to talk in a form of language that humans understand, which might allow them to give consent for marriage (and of course having the intellectual capacity to even make that type of decision). After all, we don't want a moron goat giving consent to marry a moron human, now do we?

 

[Bodi]

Which is why I'm for it.

One can advocate an outcome but not be in favor of burning the house down to achieve it.
Don't panic. There's a system in place. Keeping it consistent and fair to all is more important than any single issue.

Our system is supposed to function like the trees in Lord of the Rings. A slow but unstoppable momentum, no overreactions, no rushing without thinking, just steady progress so as to make as few mistakes as possible to avoid having to undo them.
It makes for impatience, but better legislation and decisions.

It is good that you are for it but until SSM is legal in the USA the gay community is being discriminated against...

 

[maquiscat]

Brooks posted that he is of the opinion that because civil laws in every state define eligibility conditions or limits related to applying for a marriage license - consequently marriage is a privilege not a right.

If marriage licenses worked like driver's licenses...I wonder how many people would engage in some specific behavior(s) in order for the state to take action to revoke their marriage license? But last I heard, the state can't do that.

However, my post to Brooks regarding marriage being a right was to make note that marriage is a right not without conditions or limits...as is with so many of our rights.

I agree with your point that were marriage a privilage and the paper we recieve from the government truely a license then such a license could be revoked based on a number of conditions that the government could decide upon. This is on the assumption of above and beyond one or both of the married parties desiring to end the marriage. When it comes to the legal status of marriage there should be no limits save the ability to give informed consent. If you can prove to me that there is an individual 10 year old that can actually give informed consent (an event that I would say was a mathmatical improbability), then by all means allow that individual to get married to another that can also give informed consent.

I also agree that our rights have limits but only where the excersise of a given right intrudes upon any right of another individual without express informed consent of the other.

I know you're just dying to...so give us the unedited, unabridged, and unflawed version of why individuals don't marry a parent, sibling, or even their or child...so please indulge us.

Been there, done that. I don't want to thread jack any further than I have already. That includes the 10 year old extreme example above. I have also express my views upon that in other threads. Please feel free to search them out and I'll gladly take up the line there.

Who knows...maybe goats will evolve enough to talk in a form of language that humans understand, which might allow them to give consent for marriage (and of course having the intellectual capacity to even make that type of decision). After all, we don't want a moron goat giving consent to marry a moron human, now do we?

And maybe we'll also discover that we are not the only intelligent life form in the universe. One of the great things about us is that we can concieve of that which has not yet come to pass (and may or may not). With such an ability, we should be looking more at what one's baseline rights are and work from there. If we look at the baseline right as being able to marry, on a legal basis, any other being capible of providing informed consent, then the bases are pretty much covered for what ever evolves, or we discover or discovers us.

 

[Removable Mind]

I agree with your point that were marriage a privilage and the paper we recieve from the government truely a license then such a license could be revoked based on a number of conditions that the government could decide upon. This is on the assumption of above and beyond one or both of the married parties desiring to end the marriage. When it comes to the legal status of marriage there should be no limits save the ability to give informed consent. If you can prove to me that there is an individual 10 year old that can actually give informed consent (an event that I would say was a mathmatical improbability), then by all means allow that individual to get married to another that can also give informed consent.

I also agree that our rights have limits but only where the excersise of a given right intrudes upon any right of another individual without express informed consent of the other.

Been there, done that. I don't want to thread jack any further than I have already. That includes the 10 year old extreme example above. I have also express my views upon that in other threads. Please feel free to search them out and I'll gladly take up the line there.

And maybe we'll also discover that we are not the only intelligent life form in the universe. One of the great things about us is that we can concieve of that which has not yet come to pass (and may or may not). With such an ability, we should be looking more at what one's baseline rights are and work from there. If we look at the baseline right as being able to marry, on a legal basis, any other being capible of providing informed consent, then the bases are pretty much covered for what ever evolves, or we discover or discovers us.

I agree...with pretty much your entire post.

I'm hoping that if intelligent life forms from somewhere outside our solar system arrives here...that we aren't included in their menus for their meals.

While I do understand your point about 10 year olds. I hope like hell 10 year olds don't ever have the ability to marry without the consent of a parent or guardian. But that's just me.

Thanks for the reply...

 

[jaeger19]

I think we are just muddling this up by going down a road such as this.
I could just as easily say I don't need a license to drive a car or to hunt. When someone says he NEEDS a license to drive it's not true in the sense of the physically possible, but I really didn't think we were talking about these activities in that way.

Can we possibly color code the discussion to distinguish between the two types of "need" in this case?

I agree but you are the one muddling it up. You point to the fact that certain government actions, or support requires licensing.. and pointing at that as a means of saying.. "see a right doesn't exist"... when clearly it does.

Lets make this simple. Can someone violate your rights?

Because according to your argument... no one can ever have their rights violated... because that violation is proof positive that they didn't HAVE a right in the first place. that's your argument in a nutshell.

 

[Brooks]

1. If you look at the civil marriage laws of the "majority" of states...they are virtually automatic. The common limiter or condition is "age of consent" related. Again, would you support a 10 year old to, with free will, marry?

2. As I stated, those states that have conditional provisions don't ultimately deprive people's right to marry.....

3. Marriage not starting out with the premise of "zero" conditions doesn't negate the fundamental right of marriage based on U.S. constitutional provisions.

4. Voting is a right, but not without conditions or limiters...such as age.

1. "Virtually" carries a lot of weight in your sentence. "Virtually the same procedure" is very different from "the same procedure".
Marriage licenses may be almost automatic. It's the little gulf between almost and always that removes it from the "rights" column on the ledger.
Another example of virtually? Humans and oak trees share 98% similar DNA. We are virtually the same.

2. Does your "conditional provisions" mean the same thing as my "qualifiers"?
If so, are there any states that don't have conditional provisions?

3. I'm not uncomfortable with the assigned vocabulary on the federal level. But when it reaches us in the states it has been burdened with specific criteria we must meet.
At that point it's no longer a right.

4. As with guns and marriage, voting may be one of those activities we call a right but we don't really mean it.
To vote you need to be a certain age, have a certain level of mental competence, you have to register with a local municipality and I believe you have to have lived in your residence for a certain amount of time.
Contrast those qualifiers with free speech. Free speech has none of these qualifiers (the mental competence one is proven on these very fora on a daily basis).

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

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.

Since the state already issues marriage licenses to straight people, the 14th Amendment insists that the state also issues marriage licenses to gays.

 

[Brooks]

I agree with your point that were marriage a privilage and the paper we recieve from the government truely a license then such a license could be revoked based on a number of conditions that the government could decide upon.

The difference with the privilege of marriage is that states' marriage qualifications, once proven, can't be violated.
A hunter can go over the limit and lose his license, a NYC gyro cart operator could use dog instead of goat, etc....
But a participant in a marriage can't change his age or bloodline so it's unnecessary to have a state revocation process with marriages.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

If you are not old enough, not mentally competent enough or too closely related the state CAN deny you the right to marry. It's a license. It's their rules.
That's not how "rights" work.

There's nothing unconstitutional about the government establishing restrictions as long as they are applied equally for everyone. But when you discriminate based on gender, you are violating the Constitution.

 

[Brooks]

Lets make this simple. Can someone violate your rights?
Because according to your argument... no one can ever have their rights violated... because that violation is proof positive that they didn't HAVE a right in the first place. that's your argument in a nutshell.

The fact that you used the word "violated" to describe something being taken away means it was wrong for it to have been taken away.

It's very easy to have a right taken away and no, it doesn't mean that right never existed.
If I block the sidewalk that doesn't mean you never had freedom of movement.
We're back to your word "violated". I violated your rights. Violation denotes wrongdoing on my part. My wrong was in denying you of a right.

 

[Brooks]

There's nothing unconstitutional about the government establishing restrictions as long as they are applied equally for everyone. But when you discriminate based on gender, you are violating the Constitution.

The licensing process applies fairly to everyone.
If you disagree with what the requirements are for the license that's another issue, and one in which we are probably in agreement.

 

[Brooks]

Since the state already issues marriage licenses to straight people, the 14th Amendment insists that the state also issues marriage licenses to gays.

Again, just to show you where I'm coming from, the state issues marriage licenses to EVERYONE who qualifies according to the state's criteria.
The discrimination is in the requirements of the license.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

The licensing process applies fairly to everyone.
If you disagree with what the requirements are for the license that's another issue, and one in which we are probably in agreement.

Your post is based on the false premise that licenses are issued fairly to everyone, when they are not. The state restricts marriage licences based on the gender of those applying. The Constitution forbids discriminating based on gender and it insists that everyone be treated equally under the law.