Is Marriage A Civil Right?

[wenglund]

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).

Legal representative for the Church will certainly make legal arguments in legal venues where the Church is a defendant or plaintiff. However, that is an entirely different matter than the Church, itself, taking a position regarding its own policies and beliefs.

CFR where the Church argued marriage as a civil right in polygamy cases in which it was personally involved way back when.

Also, CFR where the Church argued against marriage as a civil right in the Prop 8 case(s) in which it was personally involved.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[elguanteloko]

Being a libertarian, I don't think either marriage or civil unions is the sort of thing that government ought to worry about.

Well, you do believe the gov. should worry about marriage as a contract, correct? Saying that "marriages or civil unions aren't the sort of thing that the gov. ought to worry about" is rather vague and ambiguous.

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.

wait.. pastors? You do realize non-pastors can get licensed to perform "the gov. function of getting someone married" and that, by definition, this is NOT a gov. function anymore than giving you a state-license to practice medicine is a task the gov. should be doing but they are granting you permission to do it for them...

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.

So, how is this in anyway different from how it's done today? If you want to get married you sign a contract, too. ("some members of religions" are part of the group of people that can do this). We are speaking of legal stuff here, not of religious stuff necessarily. I can make up a religion tomorrow and proclaim people married left and right but that's clearly not what is supposed to be discussed here.

[elguanteloko]

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

The number of groups to which a law applies is meaningless by itself. One could say that there is only ONE group to which the right to property applies although this group would include almost everyone.

[elguanteloko]

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

If this isn't a matter of politics then it is, anyways, based on huge non-sequitur: that from something being immoral or not liked by God it follows strictly that it should be made illegal.

[elguanteloko]

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.

It is the case when you realize people marry the consenting adult of their choice. I know, shocking.

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.

I will say to this that, first of all, you are missing the most important point and that is the following: the Gov. should NOT restrict ANYTHING unless there is good reason to restrict it. You are free until proven that you should NOT be free. You are innocent until it is proven you are NOT innocent. You can go to the park unless there is good reason why you should be restricted to do so. The point, then, is whether or not it is a justified restriction (and the burden of proof is in those that want to keep it), not whether anyone, in principle, is able to bend their arm enough to get through the door.

Secondly, let's imagine that we, legislators, make a law that restricts granting driver's licenses so they can only be given to people who have an average hair-length of LESS THAN 5 cm.

Now, you don't HAVE to cut your hair and, definitely, EVERYONE can get a driver's license if they just comply with the restriction. Now, don't you think saying this is rather, you know, silly? People simply don't like to have their hair cut so short and that is a valid enough reason to bring as an excuse for why this law is stupid (plus the idea that it is an unjustified and unfair restriction based on nothing but dogma).

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.

Please remind me, why is this important?

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.

I've seen this idea turned around by other people as follows: "Marriage only between a man and a woman is to unjustly discriminate based on gender since, if I am a man and want to marry another man, my partner would have to be a woman to be allowed to marry me."

[altersteve]

If this isn't a matter of politics then it is, anyways, based on huge non-sequitur: that from something being immoral or not liked by God it follows strictly that it should be made illegal.

That's not true. God doesn't like swearing either, but that shouldn't be made illegal.

[thesometimesaint]

Marriage isn't ot an absolute right. But a state regulated one.

[ged1650]

The Sometimesaint hit the nail on the nailon the head. Are we asking if marriage is a constitutional right? It's not, nor should it be. Each state determines whether a marriage is acceptable. This is why there hasn't been a national referedum.

Is it a right or a responsibility? If one gets a license, a lot of both.

Ged

[LeSellers]

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.

So, a brother and his sister would be ineligible to "marry", but two brothers would be?

BTW, "genetic abnormalities" are not universally negative. In fact, ranchers know that mating siblings (or fathers and daughters, etc.) is one way of reinforcing beneficial characteristics in their herds.

Besides this obvious fact, there is another: many marriages in USmerica (especially) are, sadly, childless. When reproduction is no longer a primary purpose of marriage, "genetic abnormalities" becomes a non-issue, so marriage is now less a governmental concern. It never should have been.

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.

Consistency is not a feature of government—it always plays favorites. The fact that some people, women in this specific case, but it goes both ways in general, felt "squeamish" about something Herman Cain allegedly said or did decades ago is now a major issue in the presidential campaign. In fact, as I recall from my mandatory sexual harassment classes back in the Army, sexual harassment is defined by the squeamishness of the self-appointed "victim".

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

Why would you want to make your compatriots in arms "squeamish"? Would it be OK with you for a female Major to use her military rank to solicit sex from a Private? In the private economy would a boss be entitled to solicit sex as the basis for a job, or promotion? Would you feel squeamish for a female boss to do that to you?

[LeSellers]

Why would you want to make your compatriots in arms "squeamish"? Would it be OK with you for a female Major to use her military rank to solicit sex from a Private?

I would not. That's one serious (I was going to say "major", but did not want to be misunderstood) reason for my opposition to homosexuals' being in the military. I have seen the destructive consequences of having large numbers of women in the Army based on that very scenario. It can get no better, and my experience is that it gets much worse, when the sexes are the same and the situation is parallel.

In the private economy would a boss be entitled to solicit sex as the basis for a job, or promotion? Would you feel squeamish for a female boss to do that to you?

I have been "propositioned" (and was so naïve that I did not recognize it—a younger, and more worldly captain explained it to me) in the (military) workplace. Probably, but this is wholly off topic, and not at all germane. My point was to illustrate that government already sets up situations where the squeamishness of the self-anointed "victim" is the definition of a crime, so a hypothetical Christian who sees two men holding hands romantically and feels squeamish about it has, by stare decisis and statutory precedent, sufficient cause to deny someone the mythical right to marry someone else of his own sex.

Lehi

Edited November 28, 2011 by LeSellers

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

I'm not in favor of homosexual marriage either. But that is a far cry from discriminatiing against anyone who is homosexual.

Homosexuals have been in the US military from before there was a US military. It is long past time to realize that as long as the soldier does his/her job in a professional manner no one gives a rats behind whom they sleep with.

My mother was the only WAAC on a base in England during WW2. She commanded the Air Intelligence Group for the entire base. It was always Major -------, or mam.

I would recommend that that "Christian" stay the heck out of the Middle East where men holding hands is common, and saying anything is likely not to turn out well.

[LeSellers]

I'm not in favor of homosexual marriage either. But that is a far cry from discriminatiing against anyone who is homosexual.

You make it sound as if I were. I am not, unless the result of "indiscrimination" is destructive. We discriminate all the time in things relating to sex, e.g., separate restrooms for men and women.

Homosexuals have been in the US military from before there was a US military. It is long past time to realize that as long as the soldier does his/her job in a professional manner no one gives a rats behind whom they sleep with.

I know several men who were homosexual in the military. Two of them did not do their jobs in a professional manner. The First Sergeant and his "friend" (a private-promoted-to-corporal-to-sergeant-faster-than-anyone-could-warrant) were discovered in a compromising position when the old man couldn't find his top kick. The promotion records were investigated, and, sure enough, the "lover" was not qualified, as the glowing recommendations had suggested. Unit morale had taken a nose dive and the commander had some serious 'splainin' to do.

My own battalion commander and his wife split up when she discovered his affair with the supply sergeant. They eventually married, but that was another "love" affair that nearly destroyed a previously excellent unit.

Neither women nor homosexuals belong in the military. It's far too explosive a situation and men's lives hang in the balance. It was mere chance that kept blood from spilling in the first case above. Less so in the second, but the potential was there.

My mother was the only WAAC on a base in England during WW2. She commanded the Air Intelligence Group for the entire base. It was always Major -------, or mam.

We have read of exploits in that very theatre that led to disaster. Your mother may have been an exception ("may" in a literary sense, not questioning your word, nor hers), but it was an exception. When I joined the Army in '73, the Women's Army Corps, the WAAC, Women's Army Air Corps was a different branch) were still "affectionately" known as "Uncle Sam's Whores". in my years as a soldier, I was acquainted with dozens of single military women, either as their commander or otherwise. More than half of them became pregnant, and neither I nor anyone else in command knew who the fathers were. It got bad enough that the Army had to design maternity uniforms. The other services did, as well. Pregnant soldiers are useless on the battlefield, "non-deployable". They took up valuable slots, and counted against the unit's readiness status.

Homosexuals have the 'advantage" of not getting pregnant (except that Lesbians can and do, but not by their "lovers"), but the machinations I witnessed and heard about second-hand are very nearly as debilitating to unit cohesion and morale. Given the necessary macho nature of the combat arms branches, such liaisons as that between the First Sergeant and the private can only doom that unfortunate unit to which they would be assigned, irrespective of the "legality' of the members' status as homosexuals.

I would recommend that that "Christian" stay the heck out of the Middle East where men holding hands is common, and saying anything is likely not to turn out well.

"She" may well choose not to visit such places. However, I recall having written the word "romantic" in there, somewhere. Perhaps I am mistaken.

In any case, the sexual harassment laws I used as a basis for this part of the argument apply only in USmerica (and perhaps other hopelessly "liberal" countries), not the Middle East. Again, your point is not germane.

Lehi

Edited November 29, 2011 by LeSellers

[Pahoran]

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?

And I'm certain you thought you were being brilliantly original when you trotted out that tired old chestnut, didn't you?

You are comparing apples and turnips, Cobalt, although of course your cliche is a popular one among the immoralist clique. The fact is that anti-miscegenation laws did discriminate; in the last analysis, all laws discriminate. The question is not whether we are all going to have a knee-jerk reaction to the dreaded D word, but whether the discrimination in view is valid.

When the police in Virginia kicked down the Lovings' door to find out if they were living together as husband and wife -- and seized their Maryland marriage license as evidence of the crime for which they were subsequently prosecuted -- they were doing something that no-one even imagines is going to happen if Nigel and Rupert decide to shack up together.

Anti-miscegenation laws were an artificial constraint upon the natural state of marriage, as being the union of a man and a woman. They were different in different states, and many jurisdictions did without them altogether; they were never considered as being fundamental to what marriage is or ever was.

But whatever else has gone on -- and we've heard all the old woman-becomes-the-property-of-the-man garbage ad nauseam -- marriage has always been an arrangement between a man and a woman; that has been the case in every century and in every culture. It is the fundamental, irreducible element of what marriage is. Those who want to tamper with the most fundamental institution in human society are the ones who have to show compelling reasons why their demands should be met.

Regards,

Pahoran

[altersteve]

I'm not in favor of homosexual marriage either. But that is a far cry from discriminatiing against anyone who is homosexual.

I agree with this. I used to post on another board (that had nothing to do with the Church or religion in general), and I decided to participate in a discussion about gay marriage. Once I made the mistake of saying that I oppose it, I was accused of being "homophobic" and "anti-gay." Of course, being against same-sex marriage does not equate to hating gay people. That's what people don't understand. I love gay people; in fact, one of my best friends is gay (and he's very open about it).

When people equate opposition to gay marriage with homophobia, it really bothers me.

[DarkScythe]

it is not a civil right.

[Daniel2]

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.

Well said, Zeta. I don't think that anyone can deny that the U.S. Government considers "marriage" to be a civil right, so far as opposite-sex couples are concerned. It's worth quoting the Supreme Court ruling (Loving vs. Virginia) that made the answer that "marriage is a civil right" unequivocably clear:

“ Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

I understand the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed that "marriage is a civil right" on a total of fourteen different precident-setting cases.

Daniel2

Edited November 28, 2011 by Daniel2

[Jaybear]

...

Those who want to tamper with the most fundamental institution in human society are the ones who have to show compelling reasons why their demands should be met.

Not how it works, but okay, here are two compelling reasons:

1. People who marry, in general, live longer, happier, healthier lives.

2. Children are better off, if their parents are married.

Once I made the mistake of saying that I oppose it, I was accused of being "homophobic" and "anti-gay." Of course, being against same-sex marriage does not equate to hating gay people. That's what people don't understand. I love gay people; in fact, one of my best friends is gay (and he's very open about it).

When people equate opposition to gay marriage with homophobia, it really bothers me.

Maybe that is why they equate the two. Seems to be an effective long term strategy to link the two together.

Did you tell them that you had a gay best friend?

it is not a civil right.

Well that settles it.

Edited November 28, 2011 by Jaybear

[elguanteloko]

That's not true. God doesn't like swearing either, but that shouldn't be made illegal.

...and that's what I said. I was pointing out what the non-sequitur was.

Edited November 28, 2011 by elguanteloko

[elguanteloko]

Marriage isn't ot an absolute right. But a state regulated one.

"Absolute right"? Can you name one? Life isn't. Liberty isn't either.

[elguanteloko]

But whatever else has gone on -- and we've heard all the old woman-becomes-the-property-of-the-man garbage ad nauseam -- marriage has always been an arrangement between a man and a woman; that has been the case in every century and in every culture. It is the fundamental, irreducible element of what marriage is.

Pahoran, do you know what an "argument from tradition" is and why it is a logical fallacy? Words change and institutions do, too, and they should. Bringing out "But it has never been done like this before" isn't an argument for anything normative. If you point out to slavery or ANYTHING that has been done in the past, that wouldn't be an argument for either instituting or maintaining anything that we realize is wrong. The problem is whether it is wrong or not, not whether it was done for enough time in the past or not.

Those who want to tamper with the most fundamental institution in human society are the ones who have to show compelling reasons why their demands should be met.

And we tamper with governments, definitions, ideas in philosophy or science or religion, customs, etc. Welcome to the age when we actually try to think things through and don't get stuck on historic dogmas.

BTW, I don't think the burden of proof rests on SSM proponents when there is simply no good reason to keep this marriage restriction to same-sex couples. If there is no reason to keep you in jail then you should be let free. If there is no reason why you shouldn't be allowed to go to the park then you should be allowed to go to the park and it doesn't matter how long you have been kept in jail or how long you haven't been allowed to go to the park. Pretty basic stuff, Pahoran.

Edited November 28, 2011 by elguanteloko

[altersteve]

Maybe that is why they equate the two. Seems to be an effective long term strategy to link the two together.

Did you tell them that you had a gay best friend?

I did. And they accused me of simply using that as an excuse so as to not me look like a homophobe, and said that if he was truly my friend then I should support him in everything.

Which, of course, is ridiculous.

[altersteve]

...and that's what I said. I was pointing out what the non-sequitur was.

I misunderstood you, I guess. I thought you were accusing of us wanting everything that God doesn't like to be illegal.

We don't necessarily oppose gay marriage simply because God "doesn't like it," though. It's a bit more than that.

[elguanteloko]

I did. And they accused me of simply using that as an excuse so as to not me look like a homophobe, and said that if he was truly my friend then I should support him in everything.

Which, of course, is ridiculous.

I don't think people who oppose SSM are 'gay haters' by necessity but you should, at least, understand why they say that. It would have been pretty hard to think of a person who respected black people and still agreed with slavery or with Jim Crow laws. Possible, but not likely.

[elguanteloko]

I misunderstood you, I guess. I thought you were accusing of us wanting everything that God doesn't like to be illegal.

"Us"? I'm just saying it is a very common (extremely common) argument by people on your side on this issue. It might not be an argument you think has merit, but a quick stroll through SSM-related threads in this forum will tell you this is a very usual argument people bring forth probably as much as the appeal to history. Once people really realize "immoral" doesn't mean "something that should be made illegal", the whole picture tends to change.

We don't necessarily oppose gay marriage simply because God "doesn't like it," though. It's a bit more than that.

I don't think that's the only thing they say to oppose SSM but it is definitely the motivating factor. That's what leads them into looking at the shady 'evidence' that they uncritically think supports their view and don't take the time to think through propaganda like the following:

At 6:48 you can see why he is so passionate about Prop8. It isn't mere coincidence that Mormons brought the Proclamation to the family and other doctrinal writings to support their views. I honestly don't get how anyone can't see that this is the main issue.

Edited November 28, 2011 by elguanteloko