Replies

Re:
"...Is marriage a right? Can rights be licensed or regulated or rationed?....."

It's safe to assume you have not been reading these threads?

Marriage should not be considered "a right" that's been legislated
for a select group. Unfortunately, it appears that the honor of being
able to legally tie your life to another's and enjoy the legal benefits of
making such a life-long pledge, has indeed become a "legislated right".

It's been a licensed act, with fees attached and rationed to those
that fit a certain sexual preference outline.

If your questioning the legality of making it a "right" to be licensed,
regulated and doled out in a prejudicial manner....... The answer
is no, it's not Constitutionally correct, it's not Constitutionally
legal and that's been proven to be the answer over and over again.

Thanks

We've "spoken" before on FR, and those discussions concerned the meaning of "rights," too.

It seems to me that the first thing that needs to be done is to get the terms right; to get rid of the emotion and emotional words.

Is marriage a right similar to the right not to be killed or the right not to be enslaved? Is marriage as regulated by the State based on religion or is it a contract between individuals - similar to corporations or a license to practice medicine or law?

Rights are inalienable and can not be regulated or licensed, by the definition upon which our Nation was first publicly justified - The Declaration of Independence. The Constitution, the contract forming the union between the States, doesn't give the Federal Government any place in regulating or licensing marriage.

On the other hand, once the State presumes to regulate, the State may regulate anyway the majority sees fit. The burden is on those who wish to change the law to prove that the rule of law under the Federal and State Constitutions is being broken.

In my post #82, I gave examples of ways that the same people who oppose same-sex civil unions because those contracts would "undermine traditional marriage" tolerate - endorse, condone, and actually pay for - actions that actually *do* undermine traditional marriage.

What's interesting to me is that you didn't understand that I was supporting your point.

And that you reacted by naming the examples as """freedom of speech" that should be honored and cherished.""

We should cherish the right to freedom of speech, but we don't have to - and should never be forced by the State to - cherish, endorse, condone or pay for - what we consider immoral acts by others.

My intention in pointing out that an admitted adulterer was playing basketball to the cheers of the supporters of "traditional marriage" was that, in fact, the same freedom of speech would allow those who truly believe in traditional marriage to act to remove any endorsement or support, similar to those who objected to the Reagan movie.