- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 42,744
- Reaction score
- 22,569
- Location
- Bonners Ferry ID USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Simple question. Do you consider marriage to be a right? I want you to actually think about this question. Ask yourself how you would react if the government anulled your marriage. (if you are married) If you're not married how would you feel about never being able to be married?
Now I realize that some of you wish that the government would just get out of the marriage business. But honestly that is just wishful thinking. I'm sure you know that. So consider this...Since the government is in the marriage business do you consider it a right?
Yes I know that there is nothing in the Constitution about marriages. But we also have a right to breath air freely or take a piss and those are not in the Constitution either. So obviously there are some things that is still considered a right even though it's not in the Constitution.
Me, I would be pissed as hell if the government anulled my marriage. I DO consider it a right. A right that is just as strong as those listed in the Constitution.
I see marriage as nothing more than a contract between two or more people. I believe that people have the right to come voluntarily together and form contracts and when you violate that right, you violate liberty.
I think that many of 1138 federal benefits that you get for marriage are privileges.
i said no.
marriage is a choice. you should have the right to make that choice.
mtm1963
The government does not convey any special tax or administrative benefits on you for pissing or breathing air because those things are natural and necessary human functions. The government conveys special tax and administrative benefits on married couples because it wants to encourage social contracts that it deems beneficial to society. If the government wants to place limitations on the types of contracts that will receive those special benefits, it is free to do so, provided that those limitations comply with the Constitution.
I see marriage as nothing more than a contract between two or more people. I believe that people have the right to come voluntarily together and form contracts and when you violate that right, you violate liberty.
I think that many of 1138 federal benefits that you get for marriage are privileges.
Anyone can make a choice about anything. So yes making a choice is a right.
So are you suggesting that rights are only rights if said "right" isn't a choice?
Nope, marriage is a religious rite that pre-dates any modern law, contract law, and even most religions, including christianity. That said, since marriage is a religious function, under U.S. constitutional law it is automatically an individual right under the first amendment. The government has hijacked that and turned it over to contract law so that it could be taxed and regulated.I think the question is framed in the wrong way. Marriage is a law,
You are supposed to have the right to seek it out IF a religion will perform the ceremony, you do not have a right to force a religion to.and the Constitution guarantees every person the equal protection of the laws. Equal treatment under the law--that's a right.
I'm pretty sure that the religious rite element of marriage is superfluous to this discussion, since the context of this discussion is political, and the working of churches is extra-political. Even if it were pertinent, the first amendment would not make marriage a right--it would make the ability of a church to CREATE one a right, perhaps.Nope, marriage is a religious rite that pre-dates any modern law, contract law, and even most religions, including christianity. That said, since marriage is a religious function, under U.S. constitutional law it is automatically an individual right under the first amendment. The government has hijacked that and turned it over to contract law so that it could be taxed and regulated. You are supposed to have the right to seek it out IF a religion will perform the ceremony, you do not have a right to force a religion to.
The idea of freedom of religion is at the core of the entire arguement. Religions are exempted from many things within the law because of very specific core beliefs held within. This is at the heart of the first amendment itself. All religions have some form of marriage ceremony and marriage is a religious rite, civil marriages, while technically called that are nothing more than recognized civil unions. The rite aspect of marriage is what makes it a right.I'm pretty sure that the religious rite element of marriage is superfluous to this discussion, since the context of this discussion is political, and the working of churches is extra-political. Even if it were pertinent, the first amendment would not make marriage a right--it would make the ability of a church to CREATE one a right, perhaps.
Nope, you have to get a license to get married, which is why it can be tried in civil court. That is law which is directly against the first. Marriage is a covenant, not a true contract, that was a failing years ago in an effort to make more tax dollars.Marriage certainly is a legal contract.
Ask yourself why. Then ask yourself how governments got to license a religious ceremony, there is plenty of good reading on the subject.It creates legal obligations between the participants and affords legal advantages to them.
The rite predates any law, the first amendment of the constitution predates any law regulating marriage, thus the laws are not within the true spirit of the constitution as they civilly regulate something that is protected as religious.It's only in that context we have any business discussing "rights," since that's a legal--not religious--concept.
If it were nothing worthwhile-nothing more than a contract--why are there 1138 priveleges that come along with it?
The government does not convey any special tax or administrative benefits on you for pissing or breathing air because those things are natural and necessary human functions. The government conveys special tax and administrative benefits on married couples because it wants to encourage social contracts that it deems beneficial to society. If the government wants to place limitations on the types of contracts that will receive those special benefits, it is free to do so, provided that those limitations comply with the Constitution.
As long as government is handing out benefits and privileges with tax dollars, then marriage is a right and must be extended to all consenting adults in whatever combination they wish.
Get government out of the equation, then marriage is nothing more than free association with rules determined by whatever groups and organizations people associate with; and hence, not a right.
Marraige is a game of two halves, a civil and a religious side. One can't have one without the other.
Bolded is a critical point. There is no way that the government can enforce any marriage laws without interfering with at least one religion or group of people, so therefore any way you slice it, they have overstepped their grounds.However, the 14th Amendment provides us with the Equal Protection Clause that demands that "no state shall... deny a person in it's jurisdiction equal protection of the laws." Under the Constitution, that limits the limitations that the government can place on marriage. For instance, the government cannot encourage social contracts for only marriages of people of the same race. Therefore, the government should not discourage social contracts for marriages of people of the same gender.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?