View Poll Results: Is marriage a right?

Voters
58. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes.

    25 43.10%
  • No.

    33 56.90%
Page 12 of 17 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 168

Thread: Is marriage a right?

  1. #111
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,792

    Re: Is marriage a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark
    It would seem that the reverse is also true...secular arguments are automatically invalid when made against a religious entity.
    Within the religious perview, sure. The state cannot tell the church what it can and cannot do inside the church, with a few notable exceptions such as violating non-taxable statutes. The church has zero say in what the state does as well. Since we're talking about a purely legal and therefore secular statute, it doesn't matter if the religious like it or not, it's none of their business. They are prohibited, through the separation of church and state statutes, from imposing their religious views on the secular government.

    I was attempting to point out that some religions might be unwilling, per their beliefs, to accept a marriage between two persons of the same sex as a valid/legal one.
    Regardless of the secularity or non-secularity of the word, if they considered it part of their religion…It seemed to me that, under that premise, making same-sex marriage legal would violate the 1st amendment.
    I don't care if they like it or not, to be perfectly honest. Churches are not forced to accept interracial marriages, interfaith marriages, or *ANY* marriages for that matter. No one is forcing churches to perform marriages at all. What religion likes or what it will accept is entirely irrelevant to the question and introducing religion at all into the mix is pointless. It's none of their damn business.

    I am all for equalizing the existing laws. In fact, I thought that is what I was arguing for.
    Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who, in "equalizing" marriage would rather see *NO* marriage at all than giving everyone equal rights under the current system. Like it or not, legal marriage is not going away. Society has a vested interest in people getting legally married and the idea that marriage goes the way of the dodo is simply not going to stand up to a popular vote. Therefore we're left with accepting equality under the current laws, no matter how much it might cheese off the religious.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  2. #112
    Advisor Rassales's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    03-08-10 @ 02:23 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    564

    Re: Is marriage a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Ah - you dont understand that there IS a difference between a right and a privilege. That explains everything.

    A right is something youcan do absent any grant from the state.
    A privilege is something you can only do if the state creates a mechanism to allow it.


    Quite simple:
    You can only get married because the state created the insituton of marriage.
    The fact that the right to equal protection necessitates that the state can only deny you that privilge under certain certain cirsumtances doesn't turn that privilege into a right it simple means that if the state offers the privilege to anyone, it must also offer it to most everyone else.

    Its no diffferent than voting for President -- if the state extends the privilege to vote to anyone, because of equal protection, it has to extend it to most everyone. If the state does not extend that privilege, you donlt get to vote, and as such, voting for President is not a right.
    Except that voting IS a right, among our most basic ones, and it existed before the right to equal protection of the laws, so perhaps I'm not the one who doesn't understand.

  3. #113
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Is marriage a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rassales View Post
    Except that voting IS a right...
    Read what I said.
    Voting for President is -not- a right. Your state -lets- you vote to determne who it seats as its electors; nothing necessitates that it do so. In that, it extends you the -privilege- to vote.

    And so, my post stands.

    so perhaps I'm not the one who doesn't understand.
    Yes, yes you are.

  4. #114
    Advisor Rassales's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    03-08-10 @ 02:23 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    564

    Re: Is marriage a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Read what I said.
    Voting for President is -not- a right. Your state -lets- you vote to determne who it seats as its electors; nothing necessitates that it do so. In that, it extends you the -privilege- to vote.

    And so, my post stands.


    Yes, yes you are.
    Fair enough. If a state ended the practice of marriage, then denying marriage to someone would be acceptable. Short of ending marriage altogether, states must offer that privilege equally to everyone. Are we agreed?

    Again, since the likelihood that states will end marriage as an institution altogether approaches zero, I'm not sure how your point matters in any practical way.

  5. #115
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Is marriage a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rassales View Post
    Fair enough. If a state ended the practice of marriage, then denying marriage to someone would be acceptable. Short of ending marriage altogether, states must offer that privilege equally to everyone. Are we agreed?
    It would have to offer it to -most- everyone. Rights and privileges may be denied to certain groups, and the denial of same does not run afoul of the EP clause.

    Again, since the likelihood that states will end marriage as an institution altogether approaches zero, I'm not sure how your point matters in any practical way.
    The question asked here is if marriage is a right or a privilege.
    The correct answer is that it is a priviliege.

  6. #116
    Advisor Rassales's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    03-08-10 @ 02:23 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    564

    Re: Is marriage a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    It would have to offer it to -most- everyone. Rights and privileges may be denied to certain groups, and the denial of same does not run afoul of the EP clause.
    I don't see how you can say this, and would be interesting to see an argument for this position, rather than just an assertion.


    [By the way, did you mean to say "rights and privileges," or was that just a slip of the typing fingers? If you include rights with privileges, that would seem to undo the significance of your central point.]
    Last edited by Rassales; 01-18-10 at 01:54 PM.

  7. #117
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Is marriage a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rassales View Post
    I don't see how you can say this, and would be interesting to see an argument for this position, rather than just an assertion.
    Two examples:
    -The Equal Protection Clause does not always apply to minors, who may be (and are) denied any mumber of privilges offere by the state.
    -The Equal Protection clause does not always apply to non-citizens, who may be (and are) denied any mumber of privilges offere by the state.

    The EP clause doesn't protect just everyone from discrimination by the state, only members of groups recognized as 'protected' by law. When handing out privilege and immunities, the state cannot discriminate based on race, color, gender. religion, etc. Not every group imaginable is on this list, and until it is held that a group -is- on this list, the EP clause does not apply.
    By the way, did you mean to say "rights and privileges,"...
    The correct phrase is 'priviliges and immunities'. My bad.
    Last edited by Goobieman; 01-18-10 at 02:10 PM.

  8. #118
    Advisor Rassales's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    03-08-10 @ 02:23 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    564

    Re: Is marriage a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Two examples:
    -The Equal Protection Clause does not always apply to minors, who may be (and are) denied any mumber of privilges offere by the state.
    That's true, but only because minors do not YET have all the privileges of full citizenship. They do eventually--and, by the way, they don't have many RIGHTS (like voting or full free-speech rights) either, so I don't see how your argument applies in this case.
    -The Equal Protection clause does not always apply to non-citizens, who may be (and are) denied any mumber of privilges offere by the state.
    It's true that some rights (like voting) are denied to non-citizens, but when the Constitution says "persons," it means everyone.

    When handing out privilege and immunities, the state cannot discriminate based on race, color, gender. religion, etc. Not every group imaginable is on this list, and until it is held that a group -is- on this list, the EP clause does not apply.
    Show me where the 14th amendment mentions any of these groups you mention. There are laws that speak to non-discrimination against groups, but not the Constitution. The right to equal treatment is given to each individual, not groups.

    I'll grant you this--one might make the argument that opposition to SSM is constitutional because the nature of marriage makes it INHERENTLY a one-man/one-woman affair. The problem with this is that we don't limit marriages to opposite-sex couples whose intentions/abilities support this argument. So long as marriages can occur between couples who can't procreate, the sex of each partner is not material.

  9. #119
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Is marriage a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rassales View Post
    That's true, but only because minors do not YET have all the privileges of full citizenship...
    Whatever the reason, the 14th does not apply.
    It's true that some rights (like voting) are denied to non-citizens, but when the Constitution says "persons," it means everyone.
    Except for some, examples of which have just beem provided.
    Show me where the 14th amendment mentions any of these groups you mention.
    You have already been shown examples of certain groups do not enjoy the protections of the 14th amendment. All groups that DO enjoy that protection do so because the court decided that the protection applied to them. Until the court makes that determination, there's no legal basis for the argument that tjhe 14th applies to whatver group is in questtion. You can argue that the 1the SHOUULD apply, but not that id DOES apply.
    The right to equal treatment is given to each individual, not groups.
    As a member of a class of persons that claim discrimination.
    (Rights are not given, privileges are...)
    States cannot discriminate in granting privilges to Michal Jordan based on the fact that he is black, because black people -- a group -- are a race, and races are among those held as protected by the 14th.

  10. #120
    Advisor Rassales's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    03-08-10 @ 02:23 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    564

    Re: Is marriage a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Whatever the reason, the 14th does not apply.
    No, it doesn't apply YET. That alone defeats your comparison. You make a distinction between rights and privileges, then bring in an example where the distinction doesn't apply. And children aren't really a group, since they stop being children at a specific, legally defined point.
    Except for some, examples of which have just beem provided.
    And your examples don't hold up to scrutiny.
    You have already been shown examples of certain groups do not enjoy the protections of the 14th amendment. All groups that DO enjoy that protection do so because the court decided that the protection applied to them. Until the court makes that determination, there's no legal basis for the argument that tjhe 14th applies to whatver group is in questtion. You can argue that the 1the SHOUULD apply, but not that id DOES apply.
    Wow. Now that is circular, and it would pretty much end all debate of any kind on any legal issue. You're caught up in minutia here--none of us is a lawyer advising a client. Your insistence on the conditional tense is noted--but it's more obfuscation than argument.

    (Rights are not given, privileges are...)
    States cannot discriminate in granting privilges to Michal Jordan based on the fact that he is black, because black people -- a group -- are a race, and races are among those held as protected by the 14th.
    So we can't argue about what the 14th amendment says before a court rules, because the court hasn't ruled and therefore there is no law. And we can't argue about what the 14th amendment says after the court rules, because what ever the court decides is the law.

    How convenient.

Page 12 of 17 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •