Why is Marriage a Right?

Question

I've heard we have the "right" to marry, "right" to education, "right" to healthcare, "right" living wage, "right" to secure pension, "right" to never be offended, "right" to adopt, "right" to drive, "right" of privacy, "right" to this, and a "right" for that.

What is the difference from a "right" and a desire, or want?

What is right to you, and where do you base your concept that a right to marry whom you want is an actual right?

Lord: By what reason do you think marriage is a "right"? Simply wanting something does not qualify it as a right.

While the 14th Amendment provides equal protection for all, both straights and gays have the same restrictions under marriage laws. Both are treated equally, the results are what you disagree to.

Plus we treat people differently all the time. Women have a greater chance of getting a gvmt small business loan over men just because of their gender, rich pay more in taxes because some define that as fair. Life isn't always equal in results.

Kedar: If the gvmt should treat everyone as equals, then what about people who want to live their lives together but now enter into the gvmts defination of marriage?

The Constitution never mantions marriage as a specific right. Why do you think that it is?

Uncle: Laws do not create freedom, they restrict them. They force the gvmt to accept behavior as the law was written.

Remember the people are free do do anything except where prohibited by law. The gvmt can only do those things that are permitted by law.

Wouldn't it make more sense to remove the gvmt from define what a marriage is?

Lord: Sorry to disagree with you, but the laws are equal. You and I have the same restrictions on whom we can marry. You don't have additional restrictions just because you are gay.

Cando: Best answer so far. But let me play devil's advocate if I may.

To me rights are things that we have not because of the constitution, but for the grace of being human. Our thoughts, our work, are ours and belong to no one but us. Your rights do not cost me any of my time, labor, or intelligence.

As humans, we have the freedom to choose whom we want to associate with, and this is addresses in the first amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association

So yes, gays do have the right to marry if that is what they see best for their lives. Naturally, I may not accept your union, but that is my freedom as I am free not to associate with you.

Individuals should rely on themselves rather than the gvmt to define their relationship. Wills, living wills, durable power of attorney should trump any law, as these are our wishes.

The gvmt should protect the rights of the individual rather than developing a social dystopia.

JD: Interesting to see the difference in the concept of freedom between the two countries. I can now honestly say I would not want to live in Canada.

But I think you hit the nail on the head. Marraige is a social construct. It's something the people should decide and not the gvmt. Too ofetn we look at gvmt to guide us in our lives rather than being responsible for ourselves. Gvmt should protect the contract of marriage written by those entering into the union as they do any other partnership, business or otherwise. It's not for the gvmt to decide if we are married, that's for us to decide.

Sometimes I think people are too lazy to discuss what they want out of marriage. After all, they don't have to, the gvmt has done that for them.

Answer 1

Marriage is your choice
You fall in love you choose to marry or not
NO one should not have a say so
It is between the two people

Answer 2

Although I am not American, perhaps I could be permitted to put my two cents in, I say this only because here in Canada gay marriage is legal.

Your question opens some interesting thoughts. If not a right, then a privilege, if not a privelege, a responsibility. So which one?

Consider: Marriage as a religious institution. We've all heard this one. OK, so if churches alone should be allowed to marry members of their congregation, why not allow gay churches (which are recognized by the state, like MCC) to marry their flock.

Marriage is a civil contract (civil marriage): The question then becomes, if not religious but civil, how is marriage harmed, coerced or in any way lessened if gays can take part, and if civil unions are acceptable, what is the litmus test that makes a union a marriage?

The truth is marriage is a right solely in words. No one, not straight or gay has the implicity 'right' to marry. Marriage, if nothing else, is a responsibilty and a spiritual choice that people make between themselves and their God. The government has, over the years, allowed marriage to evolve from a religious ceremony between families to a legal status offering tax benefits and certain protections, both of person and property. Is it a right?

One could argue the equality angle, and to a degree there would be some legitimacy in so much as Taxation, inheritance, hospital visitation and medical decisions etc. would be conferred upon gays, where now none exists.

If a privilege, then to what extent does that privilege lie. Do gays have at least the expectation of opportunity. That is to say, should gays be at least allowed to try for marriage, given that they can (contrary to popular belief) have children, can be in love and be responsible citizens.

Bottom line, it comes down to property and money. Just as it did in the beginning, because as much as religious people wish to believe marriage is about love, it originally was about property, specifically how much someone could get for marrying into a wealthy family, the word for this property was Dowry.

So if marriage is not a right, but a privilege or even a religious construct, does it not then make sense to offer that privilege via religious institution, and if so, does not the MCC Church have the freedom to marry gays?

Ultimately 'rights' are a social construct that we, as people who form the society, from time to time alter, change, take back, or offer through democratic processes. As a society evolves or devolves, so the rights go.

Answer 3

People have the right to marry because all that marriage is is a contract between two people. At its least symbolic, marriage financially ties two individuals together, sharing their assets, forming a new entity to be seen for tax purposes, and extending other rights to them over one another. It is this contract that allows couples to divorce if they so choose and have the law abritrate and settle their business of who gets what. It is exactly the same as the contracts that corporations and businesses make and then, should they wish to dissolve it, or sue on the contracts' behalf, the courts will do so as well. This is how our government works; our taxes go into the protection and acknowledgement of contracts that have been publically notarized. Anyone has the right to make said contracts, and to be disallowed to do so is a violation of one's individual right.

I agree with you; most of the "rights" we have are not guaranteed in the Constitution, or if they are, they are extensions that I wouldn't see there. I don't think that we have the right to education, the right to healthcare, the right to a secure pension, the right to a living wage (whatever happened to companies' rights to pay whatever they want, and people can choose to work there for that or not?), the right to never be offended, etc., etc.. Some rights we do have- privacy is one of them, however you define it, and so should be adoption, if all parties are willing (nobody should have the right to simply take children from those who don't want to give them, or to those who have been deemed unfit parents).

In my eyes, the difference between a right and a desire or want is huge. Rights are secured by the Constitution and Bill of Rights; desires or wants are everything else that you can get your lawmaker to pass (like the "right" to healthcare, for example).

Hope that makes sense.

Answer 4

If anyone is given the right to marry, than under the laws of the U.S., then everyone should have 'equal treatment under the law.'

If the state can show 'compelling reason' to deny someone equal treatment, then they can restrict a right. To do this, the restriction must be Constitutional, that is, it must not contradict the U.S. Constitution or body of laws and legal precedents.

In the past, states have used the compelling reason argument to restrict gays from marriage, since until Laurence vs. Texas, gay sex could be illegal. But after Laurence, gay sex could no longer be illegal, so the states lost the compelling argument.

Now it is only a matter of time until the Supreme will rule that gays must be treated as EQUAL CITIZENS. That's why the religious extremists are trying to load the Court with conservative judges, to prevent this progress of Equal Civil Rights for gays.

Answer 5

The U.S. Supreme Court declared that marriage is indeed a protected "right" more than 100 years ago. This was affirmed 40 years ago when they declared laws banning interracial marriage unconstitutional. Three years ago the U.S. Supreme Court, in the Lawrence vs. Texas decision, they declared that laws banning or otherwise punishing homosexuality are unconstitutional. Short of a U.S. Constitutional amendment trashing our cherished concept of equal protection under the Law, I don't see how any law reserving Marriage for a select group could stand a true Constitutional test.

Answer 6

Citizens of the U.S. have the "right " to get married in the U.S. Citizens are people. People are gay, straight, bi etc.

People must have the same rights.

Simple...yet democratic.

NOTE: There are laws regarding marriage. Look them up. Nothing is equal between gay people and straight people under these existing marriage laws. Gays have the RIGHT be treated equally "by law". The laws must change and they will.

NOTE: I repeat, the laws will change. I can wait without further debate.

Answer 7

The rights associated with marriage (inheritance, adoption, legal, over 1000 more) are given by the STATE. Therefore it is called a "right," vs. a privilege or benefit.

If these rights are not given out equally, no matter what the gender of the marrieds are, it is blatant discrimination.

Answer 8

The Christians say that marriage is a divine institution joining one man and one woman only, and that to allow same sex marriages destroys the sanctity of the marital institution. How can Christians say such things? As if marriage were still intact. They say Marriage is supposed to be between one man and one woman only. If this is a true statement to you, then you are a Bible believing Christian and you must also agree that sex is supposed to happen only between two married people. We all know that there are many Christians who have sex before marriage? The divorce rates among Christians are so high it is ridiculous. How many of us have heard of Christians participating in adultery, pastors addicted to pornography? The institution of marriage was desecrated long before the homosexuals asked for the privilege of marriage. It was desecrated by Christians. It isn't non-Christians preachers that must leave their churches due to extra-marital affairs. Its the Christians.

Answer 9

Well if it weren't a right then there should be no restrictions placed upon it, would there? It doesn't help that it is enshrined in Law, meaning that there are rights associated with it and requirements to be met.

Answer 10

a "right" is simply a freedom to do something or to be free from doing something under the constitution

i believe the 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection to all citizens, that is, the government cannot discrimiate against various groups of citizens