The fact that marriage as a legal institution disappears once the legilsation that created it is repealed means that marriage is, undeniably, a privilege; the fact that the legal institution of marriage only exists because of the state passed legislation to create it means that marriage is, undeniably, a privilege.
And privilieges are something that you can do because they state created the legal framework to allow it. Rights require no such framework; that you cannot get legally married unless there is a state laws that creates the legal institution of marriage necessitates that marriage is a privilege, not a right.Rights are the result of a social contract between the people and the state. The state agrees to protect the rights that are important to the people in exchange for the people recognizing the legitimacy of the state.
On the contrary -- the misconception here is yours, as demonstrated.Your thoughts are simply an irrelevant hypothetical extending from a misconception of the origin of rights.
This is absolutely unsupportable. The constititon specifically protects rights, privileges and immunities; that these things are listed seperately illustrates the fallacy of your argument. That the Constitution specifies that you shall benefit from the right to equal protection when a state issues privilges in no way makes said privilege a right -- your right is found in equal protection, nothing else.Our Constitution, which is the social contract between the people and the state has been recognized by the Supreme Court to extend protection to marriage. That makes marriage a right.
This is absolutely unsupportable as well. All that has to happen for marriage, as a legal instititon, to disappear from a state is for the state to repeal the relevant laws.And since the Supreme Court has recognized it as a right, it can only be overturned by a Federal Constitutional Amendment.
No court can stop that and no court can change that, as no court has the power to prevent a state from repealing its laws.
Under your argument, only a constitutional amendment could repeal Social Security, Medicare, etc.
That's absurd on its face.
Last edited by Goobieman; 09-08-10 at 12:54 PM.
I don't know if I agree with you that marriage is a priviledge, Goobieman. If the state repeals all laws pertaining to marriage, it could not by definition, restrict marriage at all. Marriage will still take place, but be unrecognized by the state. This is why marriage is fundamental, granted not by the state, but by ones own God. The state simply regulates marriage, and places limits, and requisits for inclusion. As such, it is the state that must provide a rational reason to restrict, limit marriage to only a certain class of people. I think that the procreative capacity of men and women to produce true blood line offspring is a vurtue over the homosexual parenting model. I think that many thousands of studies have shown that chidlren do best when both a mother and a father are present in the marriage, and although the research on homosexual parenting is in its infiancy, intuition tells me that equal parenting samples of SSM, and OSM deliver a more well rounded, and self healthy individual that the OSM marriage couple will enjoy a measurable advantage over the SSM couple. I reserve that judgement until more data comes out, but, logic tells me this will be the case.
Is this advantage enough to stop gay couples from parenting? Nope, not even close, we can't stop it, nor should we, but it doesn't answer the question of what about marriage makes it fundamental, and why society would have any vested interest in it. Is the procreative advantage in parenting enough to limit marriage to heterosexuals only? Is it rational? Should procreative value be the single rationale for the state to even be involved in marriage? If it is, then should it extend to all heterosexuals, even those that do not produce children? Should the state recognize marriage in a tier system? Should they call it something else? Should they get out of it altogether?
All of these questions are on the table. I don't know how it will turn out. I know in my heart that heterosexuals do have a clear advantage with procreative capacity. Is it enough to draw a rationale? I'm not so sure.
“When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
“Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher
Not so. The state creates the legal institution, in total.The state simply regulates marriage, and places limits, and requisits for inclusion.
Thus, it must be a privilege.