Gay Marriage is Not a Right

[Brooks]

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.

True, but earlier you said "There CAN be [emphasis mine] a societal right to marriage. Is there?

Here are two different definitions of license:
a permit from an authority to own or use something, do a particular thing, or carry on a trade (esp. in alcoholic beverages).
&
grant a license to (someone or something) to permit the use of something or to allow an activity to take place.

Both of these bear out what I said in my original post.

 

[Wiseone]

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.

Assuming you're right, which you aren't, but assuming you are then you still have rules against discrimination based on certain criteria, for example you may have no right to a hunting license but you have the right to not be denied one because of your race. Likewise you may not have a right to a marriage but you have the right not to be denied for sexuality.

But of course as its been pointed out, marriage is a right.

 

[Brooks]

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!

Are you referring to the state for regulating it or to me for talking about it?

 

[Gardener]

Are you referring to the state for regulating it or to me for talking about it?

I am referring to the sophistry inherent in semantic gamesmanship.

 

[specklebang]

By the same argument then everyone licensed to drive should also be licensed to practice law, dentistry, hunt, sell liquor, run a restaurant kitchen, etc.....
After all, it's just another license.

Not buyin' it.

By the same argument, we should require licensing for driving, law, dentistry, hunting, liquor sales, restaurants and many other things. Each of these licenses have certain requirements you must meet. Driving - well, you should know how to drive. Law - you should complete law school. Dentistry - please go to Dental school first. Are you suggesting that hiomosexuality should disqualify you from holding any of these licenses?

Sorry, your argument fails completely. Unless you want to go back to the good old days and keep them uppity negroes, those christ killing jews and those sneaky spics from having a license, you need to recognize that everyone should have the same rights. So if you're OK with giving colored folks a marriage license, why should you be against licensing those gay folks? It's completely illogical.

Work your way around this and impress me.

 

[Brooks]

The Right in this case is to be Equal Before The Law.

Then may I sell liquor or do I have to meet the state's qualifications first?

license:
a permit from an authority to own or use something, do a particular thing, or carry on a trade (esp. in alcoholic beverages).
and/or
grant a license to (someone or something) to permit the use of something or to allow an activity to take place.

 

[Brooks]

Dispite the wording in some states, marriage "licenses" are more certificates acknowledging a legal status not a "permission slip" to engage in such activities. Were that to be true, then the state could revoke a marriage license against the wishes of those on it. You can have your driving license, your hunting license, etc. revokes at any time, should you violate a rule or law and they all, to my knowledge, have expiration dates. Marriages licenses do not expire and cannot be revoked for any reason outside of one of the involved individuals desire to.

I don't think states can have gray areas for their definitions of fundamental concepts, such as licenses.
The way licenses are regulated varies with the activity. Some are rubber stamp renewed, some will require re-qualification in some way (such as an eye exam for driving) and and some are renewable via a fee.
In the case of marriage, the state has its requirements front loaded and aren't in a position to investigate and regulate if the licensees are fulfilling their obligations (can you imagine?). In that case the license can only be "revoked" by the licensees.

license:
a permit from an authority to own or use something, do a particular thing, or carry on a trade (esp. in alcoholic beverages).
and/or
grant a license to (someone or something) to permit the use of something or to allow an activity to take place.

 

[Brooks]

A Marriage License is a State Approved Contract. The others are licenses.

I'm not a lawyer but I believe that contracts must spell out requirements in terms of goods or services or compensation and describe recourse for the violations of any of these.

 

[Zyphlin]

True, but earlier you said "There CAN be [emphasis mine] a societal right to marriage. Is there?

Here are two different definitions of license:
a permit from an authority to own or use something, do a particular thing, or carry on a trade (esp. in alcoholic beverages).
&
grant a license to (someone or something) to permit the use of something or to allow an activity to take place.

Both of these bear out what I said in my original post.

In the United States? I believe there is a societal right, as determined by our social contracts structure...as the SCOTUS has delcared it so. The government has an ability to regulate how it recognizes said marriage and what benefits it grants to said marriage, but under this countries social contract as it currently stands marriage in a general sense is a societal right.

 

[Brooks]

That's the whole point isn't it? Society is in the process of changing its mind about SSM, deciding that it is available to everyone no matter the gender of their chosen partner. You don't have to see it as a right to be able to see the logic and ethic of treating everyone's choice of partner equally.

I agree with you but those are two different discussions. I am pro gay-marriage, pro livery cab and pro fly fishing in federally owned streams but none of them are "rights" if you need a license.

license:
a permit from an authority to own or use something, do a particular thing, or carry on a trade (esp. in alcoholic beverages).
and/or
grant a license to (someone or something) to permit the use of something or to allow an activity to take place.

 

[Brooks]

..., for example you may have no right to a hunting license but you have the right to not be denied one because of your race.

Please read my signature line.

 

[Helix]

In reality, NO marriage is a right.

incorrect.

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

 

[joko104]

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.

You can't walk, ride a horse, skateboard, bike or lawnmower on most roads because it is illegal - and lawnmowers on none of them legally.

 

[Wiseone]

Please read my signature line.

I'm not exagerating your point, I'm doing an apples to apples comparison just like you did. If you're saying the same rules apply to marriage licenses that would apply to other licenses than I'm showing that anti-discrimination laws would apply to both as well.

 

[Brooks]

I am referring to the sophistry inherent in semantic gamesmanship.

Unfortunately, municipal regulations are written to leave as little to chance as possible. Why would a healthcare law be thousands of pages?
This is not gamesmanship. License has a specific use and a specific definition and is not applied by accident.
If this particular issue were less partisan and controversial there would be more objectivity. Then again, if there was objectivity, there'd be no online political fora so I'm certainly not for that.

license:
a permit from an authority to own or use something, do a particular thing, or carry on a trade (esp. in alcoholic beverages).
and/or
grant a license to (someone or something) to permit the use of something or to allow an activity to take place.

 

[Brooks]

1. By the same argument, we should require licensing for driving, law, dentistry, hunting, liquor sales, restaurants and many other things. Each of these licenses have certain requirements you must meet. Driving - well, you should know how to drive. Law - you should complete law school. Dentistry - please go to Dental school first. Are you suggesting that hiomosexuality should disqualify you from holding any of these licenses?

2. Sorry, your argument fails completely. Unless you want to go back to the good old days and keep them uppity negroes, those christ killing jews and those sneaky spics from having a license, you need to recognize that everyone should have the same rights. So if you're OK with giving colored folks a marriage license, why should you be against licensing those gay folks? It's completely illogical.

3. Work your way around this and impress me.

1. No, and neither does any state in the union.
Pretty simple idea really. To be a licensed pilot you need a high level of visual acuity, a regulation not necessary to sell chestnuts in front of Radio City Music Hall.
Similarly, no state has seen heterosexuality as a requirement of being a dentist.
Each licensed activity will have its own specific requirements.
I can't explain it any more simply, but I could try if necessary.

2. First - please say "the state" rather than "you" when discussing this.
Second - What?????

3. Not the validation I seek.

 

[Brooks]

In the United States? I believe there is a societal right, as determined by our social contracts structure...as the SCOTUS has delcared it so. The government has an ability to regulate how it recognizes said marriage and what benefits it grants to said marriage, but under this countries social contract as it currently stands marriage in a general sense is a societal right.

You need to meet certain state mandated criteria to have a state recognized marriage. Period.
Age, mental capacity, no familial ties, etc.
And for now, apparently, hetreosexuality.

It's not a state accident that marriage requires a license. They want it that way.

 

[Brooks]

I'm not exagerating your point, I'm doing an apples to apples comparison just like you did. If you're saying the same rules apply to marriage licenses that would apply to other licenses than I'm showing that anti-discrimination laws would apply to both as well.

When it happens we will discuss it.
The gay marriage discussion is about a real world, existing status quo that some people want changed.

 

[specklebang]

1. No, and neither does any state in the union.
Pretty simple idea really. To be a licensed pilot you need a high level of visual acuity, a regulation not necessary to sell chestnuts in front of Radio City Music Hall.
Similarly, no state has seen heterosexuality as a requirement of being a dentist.
Each licensed activity will have its own specific requirements.
I can't explain it any more simply, but I could try if necessary.

2. First - please say "the state" rather than "you" when discussing this.
Second - What?????

3. Not the validation I seek.

Sorry. The STATE of course.

The STATE argument makes no sense. If you can be licensed to be a pilot based on your ability and training, you should be able to get that license no matter your sexual proclivities. What we are discussing is a MARRIAGE license issued by the STATE. You should be able to get licensed regardless of your race, creed, color or sexual proclivities. How simple is that?

 

[Brooks]

incorrect.

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

Name a licensed activity that is a "right".

I believe the federal government allows you to own firearms but leaves it to the state to specifically regulate it. So the Supreme Court can declare marriage to be a right, but the state still requires you to qualify for it.

 

[Helix]

Name a licensed activity that is a "right".

I believe the federal government allows you to own firearms but leaves it to the state to specifically regulate it. So the Supreme Court can declare marriage to be a right, but the state still requires you to qualify for it.

the SCOTUS says it's a right. states can no more disqualify homosexuals than they can disqualify interracial marriage.

as soon as a case goes through that demonstrates personal damage, this will be settled; probably in a year or two. those who are against gay marriage will piss and moan about it, and then in a generation it will be looked at as the status quo like interracial marriage is now except by a few lone holdouts on the extreme ideological fringes.

 

[Zyphlin]

You need to meet certain state mandated criteria to have a state recognized marriage. Period.
Age, mental capacity, no familial ties, etc.
And for now, apparently, hetreosexuality.

To have a state recognized one, absolutley. And as long as you meet those criteria, you have the societal right to enter into that contract.

At the moment, in some states heterosexuality is one of those criteria. In other's, it's not.

 

[Zyphlin]

the SCOTUS says it's a right. states can no more disqualify homosexuals than they can disqualify interracial marriage.

Whoa there, you're confusing two things.

SCOTUS has said MARRIAGE is a right.

It has in no way, shape, or form stated that said right can't be restricted in terms of sex.

That's your OPINION, but the facts at this moment is that a state absolutely can disqualify homosexuals in a way that they can't regarding race. That may change at some point in the future, but legally at the moment you're completely incorrect.

 

[Helix]

Whoa there, you're confusing two things.

SCOTUS has said MARRIAGE is a right.

It has in no way, shape, or form stated that said right can't be restricted in terms of sex.

That's your OPINION, but the facts at this moment is that a state absolutely can disqualify homosexuals in a way that they can't regarding race. That may change at some point in the future, but legally at the moment you're completely incorrect.

it's inconsistent with equal protection under the law. the state amendments are going to be tossed. it's going to happen in a couple years.

 

[Zyphlin]

it's inconsistent with equal protection under the law. the state amendments are going to be tossed. it's going to happen in a couple years.

All fine and good...still is your opinion, not fact. The facts and reality of the situation, at this moment, is that they absolutely CAN disqualify homosexuals in ways they can't with race.

That may change, and it's reasonable to say you think its LIKELY to change, but unless you have a time machine I'm not aware of stating/implying it as if it's an unquestioned fact currently is incorrect.