2007-10-22 06:06:46 · 37 answers · asked by Liberal City 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes definitely.
Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.
2007-10-22 06:13:30 · answer #1 · answered by Global warming ain't cool 6 · 7⤊ 11⤋
OK please give me a moment to get this in some idea that we all can agree on. We are the product of the cumulative knowledge and experiences of all those that came before us. Marriage in the form we have today has changed from the belief that most of grew up on. It is also not what it was in the biblical times . In the old testament marriage was very much like animal breeders do today. Choosing the best traits and trying to bread out the less desirable ones. It was also a property exchange of the daughter to the man and the dowerey that went with it. The purity of the races or groups was way more important than most people think. And marrying for life ment a lot different when we only lived to the 40s for most people I see this as more than a gay issue, we should have the right to chose whomever we want to be our partner, for what ever reason we want. My sister, my life long friend, my cousin or brother, someone that I respect and want to help Our Civil rights should be that ours, I think we should be able to say that we like or do not like the way someone else does something, that is about the extent that they have the right to say. I think it is ignorant at least to not be open to many ore ideas that could help our world. If you have a group of 10 people that can live in close proximity to each other and help each other, why should we look at it as weird. I think most people are thinking that everything is about sex. being in my 50's and having been married 3 times so far, I can say that sex has very little to do with marriage. If sex is what I wanted i would never get married as my sex life goes to nothing every time I have been married. Humans take many generation to adapt that is why we see so much conflict today, if you think that just 3 generations ago most of us lived on the farm, city living is new to us and not the way humans have lived for most of our existence. I will sum it up by saying that most laws are passed by people that are deathly afraid of someone having fun. They are made because someone fells hurt by someone else being able to do something they are not able to do. If it was just about civil right this would not even be thought of as a question. We live in a society that is more worried about civil wrongs than anyone rights
2016-05-24 17:54:35 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just what civil rights are you speaking of? Show me where in the constitution it is stated that marriage is a civil right. As far as them being denied marriage rights... they have no rights there as it is a civil union, not a marriage. If they are granted marriage rights why can't any two family members living together be given the same protection?
2007-10-22 06:48:04 · answer #3 · answered by Ranger473 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes. OTOH, legally allowing it could touch on 'establishment of religion.' Marriage is an institution with roots very much in religion. While the legal benefits and obligations of marriage should certainly be available to any two (or, theoretically more) consenting adults - much like forming a corporation, really - I can see how coercing religions into recognizing a 'marriage' that doesn't fit thier definition would also be a problem.
IMHO, government should get out of the business of marriage completely. Legal 'Civil Unions' (or whatever you want to call them) should be severed from religious marriages.
2007-10-22 06:55:24 · answer #4 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, of course not!
Not if you are talking about "marriage licenses" in the United States, which are not issued by the Federal government, but are defined by the laws of the state (or lesser bodies, like counties, whose powers are derived from and derived by the state).
In fact, states don't have to issue "marriage licenses" at all!
(And most did not do so until the last century.)
If they do issue such "licenses" then each state is free to set any conditions for them, provided they do not violate an explicit provision of the Constitution -- which makes no mention of "marriage" at all, and reserves that power to the states! (cf. 10th Amendment.) Therefore, it does NOT violate anyone's "civil rights" if a state establishes objective rules about eligibility for the licenses it issues.
Marriage is primarily defined by religion (and by the dictionary).
Some religions define plural marriages. Some even define "marriages" between between humans and animals or entirely between non-humans. (Many religions also define marriages between humans and deities; but let's not go there.)
Some people have even defined "single-marriage" -- which means that you can file a joint tax return with whoever you are with on April 15th!
.
2007-10-22 06:37:28 · answer #5 · answered by bam 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, the government should not be involved in determining marriage status for anyone. Marriage is a religious ceremony that varies from sect to sect and culture to culture. It should have no more legal standing than any other religious ceremony. Any laws that determine who can be married constitutes government enforcement of religious practice. This also applies to anti-polygamy laws, as well as bans on gay marriage.
Just as the government has no right to determine an individuals marital status, individuals don't have a 'right' to get married. They should just have the right to have the government not interfere with what should be a private religious activity.
2007-10-22 06:21:09 · answer #6 · answered by Mark S 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
There is no "civil right" to "marriage".
I do not have a "civil right" to become "a bird".
Or "a plane". Or "Superman".
I am free to can myself any of those things.
But that does not mean my "civil rights" are somehow violated if the government does not agree. I do not have a "civil right" to force the government to
Three elephants can call themselves "married".
But that does not mean the state must issue such a license.
I can say I'm a a "mind-reader" or a "faith-healer" or even a "rabbi" but that does not mean the state is violating my "civil rights: by refusing to grant me "license".
People are free to call themselves whatever they wish.
None of that means that the state must issue such a license.
2007-10-22 06:42:34 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
No problem with gay marriage, but there is nothing in the consitution which allows for it to be a right.
Denying marriage in one state where a legally recognized marriage was performed in another state IS unconsitutional. That has to do with contract law though.
Anti gay people know this, which is why they are trtying to amend the Consitution.
2007-10-22 07:42:11 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
no.. Gay people have the same rights as everyone else... They want to get married they can ... but not to an individual of the same sex.. just like everyone else.. Should they be afforded "special " rights? If the answer is "yes" then where do these extended civil rights end and with whom.... Some may disagree with me but the facts are that "gay" people have the same rights as the rest of us... period.
2007-10-22 06:50:49 · answer #9 · answered by bereal1 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Denying gays the ability to pursue a homosexual relationship would be a violation of their civil rights.
Imagine the Constitutional caselaw if marriage was considered a civil rights....if my wife sought a divorce, I'd sue her *** for violating my civil rights! Take half my sh*t!?! Enjoy it in prison b*tch!
2007-10-22 06:21:11 · answer #10 · answered by Gus K 3 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Yes, it can be thought of in no other way.
Civil marriage is a civil right!
2007-10-22 13:07:00 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋