Is Marriage A Civil Right?

[Pahoran]

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

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

And people who eat vegetables live longer, healthier lives, too. Should some court declare that cheesecake is a vegetable, would that make it healthy? And if citizens who support genuinely healthy choices were to campaign to have cheesecake removed from the list, would that affect the actual health of cheesecake-eaters?

If two guys are shacking up, creating a legal fiction that calls their connection a "marriage" will not suddenly cause it to confer the benefits of genuine marriage upon them. All it will really do is skew the statistics so as to hide the beneficial effects of real marriage.

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

This is absolutely true. Here's something else that is absolutely true: the real parents of every child are male and female.

Not all of those parents are still living, or still together. But given that children are better off if their parents are married, it relentlessly follows that children are NOT better off if father divorces mother and shacks up with some other guy.

And I've said this before, and I'll say it again: the gaygitator who claims to be doing it "for the children" can demonstrate his bona fides by how carefully and assiduously he protects his children from exposure to his "gay" friends. The fellow who insists on letting his current squeeze bathe his children and tuck them into bed at best cares less about them than about his various relationships.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Jaybear]

And people who eat vegetables live longer, healthier lives, too. Should some court declare that cheesecake is a vegetable, would that make it healthy? And if citizens who support genuinely healthy choices were to campaign to have cheesecake removed from the list, would that affect the actual health of cheesecake-eaters?

Let me see if I get this: you agree that people who are married live longer, are happier and healthy than people who don't marry.

But, you believe that this fact only holds true for heterosexual couples.

Is that right? If so, can you please tell me why you think these benefits of marriage only apply to heterosexual couples?

This is absolutely true. Here's something else that is absolutely true: the real parents of every child are male and female.

I don't agree that parents of adopted children are not "real" parents. I think that is a patently offensive remark, that you would not otherwise make, but for your attempts to rationalize your opposition to gay rights.

Not all of those parents are still living, or still together. But given that children are better off if their parents are married, it relentlessly follows that children are NOT better off if father divorces mother and shacks up with some other guy.

That is not germane to the discussion. Men leave marriages for other women all the time.

The relevant question then becomes whether the children are better off, if the divorced father remarries. I would think so, as marriages bring stability, which is important when raising children.

Would you agree that marriage brings stability to a relationship that "shacking up" lacks?

[Mark Beesley]

Keep the topic on civil rights and marriage. Do not turn this into another "homosexuality/choice or inborn?" thread.

Oh, go away and let 'em spout. Better here than in front of Target!

[california boy]

The reason why people who support the gay lifestyle want us to accept that homosexuality is something other than a choice is because if that is just part of who someone is then why shouldn't they get to marry the person they are supposedly in love with just like a normal man and wife couple. .

Did I miss something? Are gay people asking Mormons to accept homosexuality? I don't really think they care what Mormons think about homosexuality. They only want to marry the person they love without the Mormons interfering. Hope you are able to see the difference.

I always find it odd that the Mormon church is fighting for gays to not marry based on some higher morality law. Can anyone explain why not allowing a gay couple to marry will make them more moral? What group becomes more moral when gays are not allowed to marry? Does it help straight people to be more moral if gays are not allowed to marry? Is it better for gay people to live together rather than be married? Just exactly what is the church fighting for here? More morality or just tradition.

[Mark Beesley]

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?

Without having read through the entire thread, I think you have to define what you mean by a civil right.

If it is a right that is created by natural law, then no.

If it is a right that is created by temporal (manmade) law, then it depends on whether or not those who make the law have decided to make it a right.

Whether or not it is a civil right does not change the bottom line . . . homosexual acts are sinful. They are offensive to the Spirit, and engaging in such acts is one of the quickest ways to die spiritually. Thankfully, the atonement of Christ is able to regenerate the repentant.

[Mark Beesley]

I always find it odd that the Mormon church is fighting for gays to not marry based on some higher morality law. Can anyone explain why not allowing a gay couple to marry will make them more moral?

It won't. We just don't want to be on the side that says it is okay for the Government to license sin, thereby somehow legitimizing it. I'm sure you can see that.

[altersteve]

Without having read through the entire thread, I think you have to define what you mean by a civil right.

If it is a right that is created by natural law, then no.

If it is a right that is created by temporal (manmade) law, then it depends on whether or not those who make the law have decided to make it a right.

Whether or not it is a civil right does not change the bottom line . . . homosexual acts are sinful. They are offensive to the Spirit, and engaging in such acts is one of the quickest ways to die spiritually. Thankfully, the atonement of Christ is able to regenerate the repentant.

I mean, is it a civil, Constitutional right for people to get married? Gay marriage aside, just marriage in general. That's all I'm wondering. Everyone here seems to think it is, so my question is answered, but there's a good discussion going.

[Cobalt-70]

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.

When we are talking about "fundamental rights," the idea of suspect classes are irrelevant. Fundamental rights are protected by the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment, whereas the idea of suspect classes are part of the Equal Protection clause. Both clauses of the Constitution have been used in the same-sex marriage debate, but they are independent of each other.

[Mark Beesley]

I mean, is it a civil, Constitutional right for people to get married? Gay marriage aside, just marriage in general. That's all I'm wondering. Everyone here seems to think it is, so my question is answered, but there's a good discussion going.

Well, the Constitution doesn't really address marriage. But the Supreme Court has read it into the document. But like most rights that are created by man, there are always limitations. You generally have to get a license, but not always. You can't marry your sister or brother, and you can't marry more than one spouse. Until relatively recenlty, no one even thought that it was necessary to say you couldn't marry someone of the same sex, so that oughta give folks some pause to consider whether or not SSM should be read into the Constitution. Whether or not the Court's do so, I think it is important that the voice of the people continues to reject the legitimization of sin.

[california boy]

It won't. We just don't want to be on the side that says it is okay for the Government to license sin, thereby somehow legitimizing it. I'm sure you can see that.

So unlicensed sin is much more acceptable huh. Oh that helps a lot. Do you really think that people would be confused on the churches position on homosexuality if it hadn't fought to prevent gays from marrying? Is it just the gay issue that makes the church want to get so active in politics over this issue? After all, I don't see the church putting propositions on the ballot over abortion or any other moral issue. It makes the gay community feel like the church has singled them out among all the other moral issues. And one has to wonder why.

[Mark Beesley]

So unlicensed sin is much more acceptable huh. Oh that helps a lot. Do you really think that people would be confused on the churches position on homosexuality if it hadn't fought to prevent gays from marrying?

Don't be dense. It's not a matter of other people being confused. It's a matter of being able to stand before God on judgment day and saying, I did not vote to legitimize sin. Ok?

And no, unlicensed sin is as equally abohorrent to God as licensed sin. And whether you have a license or not, the Spirit is going to flee when you engage in sinful behavior.

[LeSellers]

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.

Except the children's parents cannot be married if the mother is not married to the father because the father is married to another man.

Lehi

[Zeta-Flux]

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:

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

But your quotation ellipsed out the important part, which makes it clear that marriage as understood in that ruling was between man and woman.

[Pahoran]

Let me see if I get this: you agree that people who are married live longer, are happier and healthy than people who don't marry. But, you believe that this fact only holds true for heterosexual couples.

Is that right? If so, can you please tell me why you think these benefits of marriage only apply to heterosexual couples?

Now Jaybear; I'm confident that you understand me.

I'm saying that the benefits of marriage come from what it is, not from what it is called. Just like calling cheesecake a vegetable does not magically endow it with the nutritional properties of real vegetables, neither does calling non-marital arrangements "marriages" magically endow them with the social, emotional and spiritual properties of real marriages.

I don't agree that parents of adopted children are not "real" parents. I think that is a patently offensive remark, that you would not otherwise make, but for your attempts to rationalize your opposition to gay rights.

You are getting carried away in your spite. I said nothing about adopted children. It just so happens that I am the father of two adopted children.

And my wife is the mother thereof.

All else being equal, children are indeed better off if they have a father and a mother who are married. In fact, that is still the case even when all else is not equal. They are not better off if they live with two adults who both expect to be called "dad" and whose arrangement is called a "marriage" by a legal fiction.

And adoption is not, and never has been, a "right." You are getting ahead of yourself, Jaybear. You're supposed to get "gay" marriage locked down before you start demanding "gay" adoption. Leave the chickenhawks out of this for now.

That is not germane to the discussion. Men leave marriages for other women all the time.

At which point the parents of their children are no longer married.

The relevant question then becomes whether the children are better off, if the divorced father remarries. I would think so, as marriages bring stability, which is important when raising children.

Would you agree that marriage brings stability to a relationship that "shacking up" lacks?

Yes.

Calling a shacking up a "marriage" will not automagically make that relationship more stable, however. Especially when neither party ever has any serious expectation that the arrangement will be either permanent or exclusive.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

When we are talking about "fundamental rights," the idea of suspect classes are irrelevant. Fundamental rights are protected by the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment, whereas the idea of suspect classes are part of the Equal Protection clause. Both clauses of the Constitution have been used in the same-sex marriage debate, but they are independent of each other.

Let us agree that every man has a "fundamental right" to get married; that is, to enter into marriage with a woman who is eligible and will have him.

Let us likewise agree that every woman has a "fundamental right" to get married; that is, to enter into marriage with a man who is eligible and will have her.

Now please explain why the lack of "same sex marriage" (an oxymoron, like a square circle) interferes with this "fundamental right?"

Regards,

Pahoran

[cdowis]

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.

They are many christophobes in the world, hating religion and Christianity in particular.

[cdowis]

Let us agree that every man has a "fundamental right" to get married; that is, to enter into marriage with a woman who is eligible and will have him.

Let us likewise agree that every woman has a "fundamental right" to get married; that is, to enter into marriage with a man who is eligible and will have her.

Now please explain why the lack of "same sex marriage" (an oxymoron, like a square circle) interferes with this "fundamental right?"

Clearly the issue is whether there is a fundamental right to marry any consenting adult of my choice, without any limitation. Like the blind woman applying for a driver's license, society has a duty to place restrictions on the granting of a license. In the case of inter-racial marriage, it was an illegal restriction. In the case of closely related individuals, it is a legal restriction.

Society throughout the millenia have decided to allow marriage only to those of the opposite sex. The reason for that restriction was not religious, since even the Greeks, who openly practiced homosexualty, did not allow such marriages. The choice of mates has been controlled by all societies and is unrelated to racial discrimination.

Edited November 29, 2011 by cdowis

[wenglund]

When we are talking about "fundamental rights," the idea of suspect classes are irrelevant. Fundamental rights are protected by the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment, whereas the idea of suspect classes are part of the Equal Protection clause. Both clauses of the Constitution have been used in the same-sex marriage debate, but they are independent of each other.

This thread isn't about marriage as a fundamental right. It is about marriage as a civil right. The question of civil rights is a matter of equal protection, not due process.

Besides, while the courts have only recently and questionably deemed marriage (presumed to be defined as between a man and women) to be a fundamental right and considered it a matter of due process, we are waiting on the appeals process for Perry v. Schwarzenegger to see if the uppers courts will consider same-sex marriage a fundamental right.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Cobalt-70]

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.

For the first question, marriage itself was not recognized as a fundamental secular right until the mid-20th century, but Mormons argued that marriage was a fundamental religious right in the 1800s. Back then, they had to approach it through the 1st Amendment. See the Supreme Court decision in Reynolds v. United States, which was a test case for Mormon polygamy in which the church lawyers lost. See also Smith's statements in Ohio regarding what he believed was his absolute religious right to perform marriages even in defiance of civil law. https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/BYUStudies/article/viewFile/6710/6359

In 2011, Dallin Oaks pitted the "freedom to marry," which he spoke dismissively of, against the Free Exercise clause, arguing in essence that religious freedom gives society the "freedom" to legislate in the name of God, and thereby impose that "freedom" upon others. http://newsroom.lds.org/article/elder-oaks-religious-freedom-Chapman-University.

[Cobalt-70]

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.

When were mixed-race marriages ever the "natural" state of marriage? From the perspective of your counterparts from the 50's, they represent a new type of liberal marriage that never exited in the history of the world until it was invented in the 20th century. It was these degenerate multi-race couples who came along and sought to destroy the time-honored institution of marriage.

Edited November 29, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[california boy]

Don't be dense. It's not a matter of other people being confused. It's a matter of being able to stand before God on judgment day and saying, I did not vote to legitimize sin. Ok?

And no, unlicensed sin is as equally abohorrent to God as licensed sin. And whether you have a license or not, the Spirit is going to flee when you engage in sinful behavior.

Oh I see. I didn't realize your salvation was based on what you allow other people to do.

Wait. If unlicensed sin and licensed sin is equally abohorrent to God, how does not allowing gays to marry going to help your salvation?

[altersteve]

Oh I see. I didn't realize your salvation was based on what you allow other people to do.

Wait. If unlicensed sin and licensed sin is equally abohorrent to God, how does not allowing gays to marry going to help your salvation?

It affects their salvation, not ours.

[california boy]

It affects their salvation, not ours.

Oh so the church is fighting gay marriage to save the gays. So if gays are not allowed to marry, then that will save them? Or is it if gays are not allowed to marry then they will turn straight?? You gotta let me in on this game plan on how if gays are not allowed to marry they will be saved..

[Storm Rider]

I frankly don't see marriage as a social right, but it is a cultural norm. I don't see two people of the same sex marrying for the same reason I don't see a man and dog being able to marry. It makes no sense.

What is problably more of a problem for me is the rights that are denied people. Participating in insurance plans, visiting in the hosptial, being designated as a inheritor, etc. These are benefits that should not pertain to marriage, but to all humans in general.

There should not be legal rights afforded married couples simply because they are married; social benefits belong to all people regardless of their marital state.

[thesometimesaint]

California Boy:

The Church is fighting to save all sinners including the homosexual ones. The state has a vested interest in its own long term survival. SSM is antithetical to the long term survival of the state.