Is Marriage A Civil Right?

[altersteve]

I've been studying the topic of gay marriage in the United States and the controversy surrounding it, and, naturally, I've read some conflicting opinions about whether marriage is a civil right or not. Generally, those for gay marriage say it is, and those against it say it is not, but I'm sure it's a bit more complex than that. Something as controversial as this is clearly a subject that isn't clear in the Constitution.

What do you think? Does the Church have an official stance on this?

[orion88]

Does the Church have an official stance on this?

See http://www.cbsnews.c...n5612735.shtml.

- "Mormon Church Backs Gay Rights Bill"

"The church supports these ordinances because they are fair and reasonable and do

not do violence to the institution of marriage," Michael Otterson, the director of public

affairs for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said.

[Nominee]

I've been studying the topic of gay marriage in the United States and the controversy surrounding it, and, naturally, I've read some conflicting opinions about whether marriage is a civil right or not. Generally, those for gay marriage say it is, and those against it say it is not, but I'm sure it's a bit more complex than that. Something as controversial as this is clearly a subject that isn't clear in the Constitution.

What do you think? Does the Church have an official stance on this?

You mean besides The Family: A Proclamation To The World?

[altersteve]

I know fully well that the Church opposes same-sex marriage, but what is its stance on whether or not it is a right for all Americans? Does the Church believe, in a political sense, that marriage is a right only given to heterosexual people?

I know what I'm trying to say in my head. Maybe I'm not wording it clearly enough.

[altersteve]

See http://www.cbsnews.c...n5612735.shtml.

- "Mormon Church Backs Gay Rights Bill"

"The church supports these ordinances because they are fair and reasonable and do

not do violence to the institution of marriage," Michael Otterson, the director of public

affairs for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said.

I know that, but I'm not talking about gay rights in general. I'm talking specifically about marriage, and even more specifically, gay marriage.

[Nominee]

Hmmm. I have come up with this link:

http://newsroom.lds....ion-of-marriage

edit: Oh, here, this one also:

http://newsroom.lds.org/article/same-sex-marriage-and-proposition-8

Edited November 28, 2011 by Nominee

[altersteve]

Thank you.

I'm not well-versed in politics (hoping to fix that), so forgive me if I'm being incredibly naive here.

[Bernard Gui]

I've been studying the topic of gay marriage in the United States and the controversy surrounding it, and, naturally, I've read some conflicting opinions about whether marriage is a civil right or not. Generally, those for gay marriage say it is, and those against it say it is not, but I'm sure it's a bit more complex than that. Something as controversial as this is clearly a subject that isn't clear in the Constitution.

What do you think? Does the Church have an official stance on this?

Do Americans have the right to marry whomever they please? I don't think so. Even those who advocate marriage as a civil right put some restrictions on who can marry whom. How can it be a civil right if it is restricted to only two groups, ie., heterosexual and homosexual couples?

Bernard

[Bob Crockett]

Yes, marriage is a civil right. That has been made clear in the miscegenation cases.

Just like one doesn't have an unfettered right to say whatever one wants, one cannot marry just anyone or anything. Moreover, a legislating body could say that there are compelling reasons why gays should not have that civil right, just like the legislature can ban electioneering within so many yards of a polling place.

The question of gay marriage is not so easily answered by arguing simply that marriage is or is not a civil right.

[kolipoki09]

The question of gay marriage is not so easily answered by arguing simply that marriage is or is not a civil right.

Given that you believe marriage is a civil right (and I'm inclined to agree with you) would you say you're in favor of civil unions, which grant the same rights of marriage enjoyed by heterosexual couples without formally calling it "marriage" in the traditional sense of the word? Or should the term be redefined (in the traditional sense) to include homosexual couples?

[Bob Crockett]

Being a libertarian, I don't think either marriage or civil unions is the sort of thing that government ought to worry about. Certainly, if government is, as it has, been willing to license pastors to perform a government function, then pastors have the right to argue that marriage shouldn't be extended to gays. But, the best thing is to get government out of the marriage business. If you want a marriage or a civil union, go to your religion or sign a contract.

Edited November 28, 2011 by rcrocket

[ERayR]

Thank you.

I'm not well-versed in politics (hoping to fix that), so forgive me if I'm being incredibly naive here.

It is not a matter of politics. Read the proclamation again.

[David T]

Isn't Historically Traditional Marriage/Biblical Marriage that legal contract where the wife become's the man's legal property, after the wife's family pays a ton of money and/or property to the husband, often times pre-arranged without much if any actual courting period or need for initial love?

From a historical perspective, the current American view of marriage is not at all Traditional. So many keep using that term Traditional Marriage as if it refers to single continuity in how marriage was experienced and viewed from the beginning of time, and as if there haven't already been radical redefining and rearranging of the institution. I do not think Traditional Marriage means what many think it means.

[Zeta-Flux]

The Supreme Court has already decided that marriage is a fundamental right. It is irrelevant what we lay people believe, unless we make some radical changes to the constitution to negate how the Supreme Court has ruled--and I find that highly unlikely.

[wenglund]

Yes, I believe the Supreme Court has deemed marriage (defined as between an man and a women) to be a civil right. I don't believe they have deemed marriage (as otherwise defined) to be a civil right.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[kolipoki09]

Being a libertarian, I don't think either marriage or civil unions is the sort of thing that government ought to worry about. Certainly, if government is, as it has, been willing to license pastors to perform a government function, then pastors have the right to argue that marriage shouldn't be extended to gays. But, the best thing is to get government out of the marriage business. If you want a marriage or a civil union, go to your religion or sign a contract.

I've heard the "get the government out of marriage" position before, but not quite from a perspective like your own. Thank you for sharing. I think you've raised an important point with regard to the rights of pastors to argue for traditional marriage. Even after studying the issue at length, I don't think I've come across anything quite like it.

The problem I have with getting the government out of marriage has to do with governmental values. By the government sanctioning marriage and civil unions (and extending certain benefits to those who enter into such relationships), the government is, in fact, declaring a matter of preference. It is the equivalent of government officials saying "we value X for YZ reasons." Now in this context, the government is inferring that they value marriage and civil unions because they (in theory) promote economic, physical, and social stability.

Even as someone with rather libertarian leanings, I can't help but want to support legislation that promotes the very kinds of benefits extended to those entering into marriages and civil unions. Sure, the benefits of marriage could (in theory) be enjoyed without a government-sanctioned ordinance, but to me, government sponsorship (in theory, once again) guarantees the execution of those benefits.

I have no particular problem with the Church wanting to promote marriage as it has been traditionally defined, but I am still somewhat puzzled as to why the Church has opposed civil unions in the past and yet appears to support them in other situations.

[Nominee]

Yes, I believe the Supreme Court has deemed marriage (defined as between an man and a women) to be a civil right. I don't believe they have deemed marriage (as otherwise defined) to be a civil right.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I found this article discussing marriage and also same sex marriage being and also not being considered a civil right according to the Supreme Court.

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gendersexuality/f/Is-Marriage-a-Civil-Right.htm

It appears that marriage between a man and woman is considered a civil right but the vote is still out on whether same sex marriage will ever be considered such.

[Pahoran]

I know fully well that the Church opposes same-sex marriage, but what is its stance on whether or not it is a right for all Americans? Does the Church believe, in a political sense, that marriage is a right only given to heterosexual people?

I know what I'm trying to say in my head. Maybe I'm not wording it clearly enough.

There are those who argue that defining marriage as a mixed-sex institution means that it is a "right" that is "only given to heterosexual people."

But that is not the case.

I'm not aware of anyone proposing any kind of "sexual orientation test" to determine whether a person is eligible to marry. Under the marriage laws of every jurisdiction I am aware of, any single man of marriageable age, regardless of "orientation," is free to marry any single woman of marriageable age, regardless of "orientation," who is willing to have him.

Put another way: marriages are entered into by couples, but marriage as a right attaches to individuals.

There has been a concerted attempt to blur this distinction by talking about something like "the rights of same-sex couples" vs. "the rights of mixed-sex couples." This is a red herring because neither "couple" actually has "rights." It is the individuals who have rights, and so a "couple" has a kind of second-tier or inferred set of rights deriving from the rights of the two people involved.

The fact is that (in all civilised places, without exception) no man, whether "gay" or straight, has any "right" to marry another man; he only has the right to marry a woman.

Likewise, no woman, whether "gay" or straight, has any "right" to marry another woman; she only has the right to marry a man.

Since approximately the 1960's, people have been brought up with the idea that if they want something, they have a "right" to have it. This is an unfortunate mindset, and one which, in my view, is dangerous to the survival of anything resembling a civil society.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Cobalt-70]

I've been studying the topic of gay marriage in the United States and the controversy surrounding it, and, naturally, I've read some conflicting opinions about whether marriage is a civil right or not. Generally, those for gay marriage say it is, and those against it say it is not, but I'm sure it's a bit more complex than that. Something as controversial as this is clearly a subject that isn't clear in the Constitution.

From any rational perspective based on Constitutional law, marriage is absolutely a civil right. From the religious perspectives of the current LDS Church leadership and evangelical conservatives, the answer would be no. But if you rewound time back about 130 years, the LDS Church leadership would have said (and did say) yes.

[Cobalt-70]

I'm not aware of anyone proposing any kind of "sexual orientation test" to determine whether a person is eligible to marry. Under the marriage laws of every jurisdiction I am aware of, any single man of marriageable age, regardless of "orientation," is free to marry any single woman of marriageable age, regardless of "orientation," who is willing to have him.

Put another way: marriages are entered into by couples, but marriage as a right attaches to individuals.

And likewise, in the 1950s, every man in the Southern states had an absolute right to marry a woman of his own race, regardless of his race or ethnicity. Thus, there was no discrimination at all, right?

Edited November 28, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[cdowis]

Let's ask the question in a different way. Is obtaining a marriage *license* a civil right, under all circumstances? Mother and son, father and daughter, brother and brother, for example.

Is obtaining a driver's license a civil right, even for a blind individual? Is that illegal discrimination.

Society determines the rules for granting a license, based on the protection and best interest of society. It is not necessarily a religious issue, considering that all societies had not performed same sex marriages, including the ancient Greeks who openly accepted homosexuality.

Edited November 28, 2011 by cdowis

[Cobalt-70]

Let's ask the question in a different way. Is obtaining a marriage *license* a civil right, under all circumstances? Mother and son, father and daughter, brother and brother, for example.

Is obtaining a driver's license a civil right, even for a blind individual? Is that illegal discrimination.

Society determines the rules for granting a license, based on the protection and best interest of society. It is not necessarily a religious issue, considering that all societies had not performed same sex marriages, including the ancient Greeks who openly accepted homosexuality.

Marriage is always a fundamental right. But the way it works in constitutional law is that a fundamental right is inviolate unless the government is protecting a "neutral" and "compelling" interest. Preventing genetic abnormalities resulting from incest would be considered a neutral and compelling interest. The fact that some people get squeamish or angry when they see two men are holding hands, or that fact some people think that God doesn't approve of someone else's type of marriage, are not neutral and compelling interests.

[wenglund]

From any rational perspective based on Constitutional law, marriage is absolutely a civil right. From the religious perspectives of the current LDS Church leadership and evangelical conservatives, the answer would be no. But if you rewound time back about 130 years, the LDS Church leadership would have said (and did say) yes.

Since the Church doesn't view the issue of marriage in terms of civil rights, but rather in terms of spiritual and moral progression and the will of God, your statement above, like most of your statements on this board, doesn't make sense.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Cobalt-70]

Since the Church doesn't view the issue of marriage in terms of civil rights, but rather in terms of spiritual and moral progression and the will of God, your statement above, like most of your statements on this board, doesn't make sense.

So are you saying that the church never uses legal arguments to speak on the issue of marriage? They did it when polygamy was the "alternative lifestyle" du jour, and they did it with Proposition 8 (though switching sides).

[wenglund]

Marriage is always a fundamental right. But the way it works in constitutional law is that a fundamental right is inviolate unless the government is protecting a "neutral" and "compelling" interest. Preventing genetic abnormalities resulting from incest would be considered a neutral and compelling interest. The fact that some people get squeamish or angry when they see two men are holding hands, or that fact some people think that God doesn't approve of someone else's type of marriage, are not neutral and compelling interests.

Actually, the constitutional threshold for determining the level of scrutiny depends upon whether the case under consideration involves a suspect classification. Traditionally, neither sexual orientation or homosexuals have been considered a suspect classification, and as such the state is only required to establish a rational basis for restricting marriage to a man and a woman.

The Supreme Court has long held that the state and its people, including those that are religious, have a number of rational reasons not to sanction non-procreative and abnormally unhealthy relationships such as homosexuality, not the least of which is a cost/benefit analysis across a number of social/govenrmental issues.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 28, 2011 by wenglund