MARRIAGE (GAY OR OTHERWISE) NOT A CIVIL RIGHT (SHORT VANITY)

Kurt Blake

[RUCKUS INC.]

Okay folks, we've all seen the news reports with protesters claiming that denying marriage to gays is a civil rights violation. Follow my line of thinking here and then feel free to disagree or engage in spirited debate.

If marriage is a civil right, then: ...A judge granting a divorce is violating at least one spouse's civil rights.

If marriage is a civil right, then: ...A spouse asking for a divorce is violating the other spouse's civil right.

If marriage is a civil right, then: ... state and federal governments should be actively assisting single persons desirous of marriage in finding suitable partners

... (and my personal favorite) If marriage is a civil right, then that makes marraige the only civil right (to my knowledge) that is not an individual right.

Feel free to criticize or disagree...

[DameAutour]

I agree that couples do not have civil rights. Individuals have civil rights. And even that doesn't mean each individual has the civil right to marry (i.e. have their marriage recognized) the person (or creature or thing) of their choosing.

[RUCKUS INC.]

and of course, it follows that if a judge or spouse can "withhold" marraige from someone, then society, by default, can withhold marriage from whomever it chooses.

[Auntie Dem]

Government cannot license a right. They can only license privilges. Driving a car is a privilige, so government can license automobile drivers. Self defense is a right, government cannot license guns (but they do). All individuals have a right to freedom of association, so government cannot tell you who you can shack up with,(so they don't license shacking up) but if you want government's recognition of your relationship with a spouse you need a marriage license.

Equality under the law does not apply to marriage licenses because all applicants for a license are not equal. Two men are not the same as (equal to) a man and a woman.

The law can deny certain priviliges to certain people because of their behavior, even if that behavior only involves "morality". A person can be denied his freedom of movement for lewd behavior in a public place. A person can be denied other rights and priviliges if they commit a crime. Homsexual conduct is a crime against civilization, and has been recognized by most civilzations for centuries. In most states a person can be sued for an adulterous affair under alienation of affection statutes, adultery itself is illegal in most states because the actions of the offending spouse affect the life and well-being of the other spouse. Laws against sexual misconduct are not aimed exclusively at homosexuals. If homosexual acts are committed in public they are just as punishable as heterosexual acts committed in public.

[tahiti]

It is a "natural right," just like all of the "rights" enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.

Specifically, Amendment IX:

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, SHALL NOT be construed to DENY OR DISPARAGE others, retained by the people."

Our government, limited by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as intended, has no business, no jurisdiction, no authorization to the contrary.

Citizens have the right, "...retained by the people," to marry the person of their choice.

Rights are not negotiable in the political arena. Rights are not defined, allowed or disallowed by the majority. We do not live in a democracy.

[RUCKUS INC.]

"It is a "natural right," just like all of the "rights" enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. "

My point is, it is not a civil right. However, I am not sure that "natural rights" can apply to two people either. Please expand on this thought.

[longtermmemmory]

If marriage is a civil right then it can't be denied to anyone for any reason.

[longtermmemmory]

Marriage is about children. Perpetuating society.

As long as within those confines there are rights that can't be denied. Like you can't order a person to be sterilized without a really big scandal. There were cases where mentally disabled were force sterilized but that did not get far. Rights advocates went ballistic when a judge ordered a woman to have longterm birth control implant as a condition of her release.

Homosexuals are trying to equate the personal private individual right to private sex with a public participation in an institution.

[longtermmemmory]

Rights are not absolute. Fire in a crowded theater.

Me thinks we have been set up.

[America second to none]

Here's the prediction: The gay marriage forces will win. The religious leaders in this country, save the heavy lifting crew of Dobson, Falwell, and Robertson, is as usual silent, and I'm not in their( D,F&R's) theological camp. At least they aren't running for cover.

The spirit of the age in America is pagan. The church is, as usual, silent. If this issue doesn't get the church leaders speaking out, nothing will. I'm not holding my breath. Truth will win in the end though. Shame on Christian America if it remains indifferent. We deserve better leadership. We should demand no less.

[BikerNYC]

Here's the prediction: The gay marriage forces will win.

Really? Wow. When gay married couples begin to move into neighborhoods and become neighbors to straight married couples, what is the worst that you think will happen?

[truthchaser]

Ahhh, the classic "it's ok if does't hurt anybody", morality is relative, there are no absolute truths argument? To me, that just misses the point entirely. Homosexuality is wrong, plain, simple, and yes fundemental. Voluntary polygamy, consensual incest, bestiality... all wrong, but arguably not "hurting" anyone. Since when did not hurting, offending, or affecting others become the extent of our value system?

[longtermmemmory]

How many laws and fiancial benefits will have to be granted based on sexual behavior?

Will a person be able to have a tax break by marrying their split personality?

[BikerNYC]

Since when did not hurting, offending, or affecting others become the extent of our value system?

If it isn't a factor when deciding what is right and wrong, then your very thoughts can be declared immoral.

[PFC]

Marriage is about children. Perpetuating society.

No, not really. Civli marriage serves many purposes. Civil marriage is about creating a contract. A contract creating an economic unit with rights and obiligations. Children make up only an insignificant part of the marriage laws. It does make up an important part of sectarian (church) marriage but not the state laws regarding marriage. Check the marriage laws and stop speaking from ignorance.

[longtermmemmory]

No not under the law. Marriage is a public institution not a mere contract. Divorce and probate law is interweaved with providing for children and provideing for subsequent generations.

Marriage is marraige as far as the law is concerned. there is no "civil" marraige. If a priest is performing the ceremony, the law only sees the priest in their capacity as a notary public. Your arguments are jsut tracking the homosexual arguments of viewing children as an accessory.

As an attorney I am quite familiar with the laws.