• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is marriage a right?

Is marriage a right?


  • Total voters
    50
What's that? You agree that MOST, not ALL, people have the right to vote when they turn 18? Thank you.

All Americans, sure. Nobody has a right to vote in *ANY* nation they are not a citizen of. Are you being purposely obtuse?
 
Simple question. Do you consider marriage to be a right?

Supreme Court - Loving vs Virginia said:
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.

If the supreme court recognizes it, that is enough for me.

Personally, as long as society considers it a right, I am ok with it too since it is also a good idea.
 
So--to repeat--on what basis are they do be denied such a privilege? Your whim? The desires of the majority?
Who? Homosexuals?
When did I say they should be denied the privilege?
 
All Americans, sure. Nobody has a right to vote in *ANY* nation they are not a citizen of. Are you being purposely obtuse?
The term used was "people", as in "most people", not "Americans".
Are you being obtuse on purpose?
 
If the supreme court recognizes it, that is enough for me.
Personally, as long as society considers it a right, I am ok with it too since it is also a good idea.
Marriage is not a right - it is a privilege granted by the state; said privilege can be removed by a simple act of legislature.
No words from any court can override that fact.
 
Who? Homosexuals?
When did I say they should be denied the privilege?
We've been around this barn several times now, and all you've done is obfuscate the points I've made. You haven't addressed them. Someone else actually implied you were being deliberately obtuse. I've responded to the points you've made. I wish you would provide me with the same courtesy.
 
We've been around this barn several times now, and all you've done is obfuscate the points I've made. You haven't addressed them. Someone else actually implied you were being deliberately obtuse. I've responded to the points you've made. I wish you would provide me with the same courtesy.
You seem to be under the impression that I have argued that the EP clause doesnt apply to homosexuals regarding the privilege of marriage, and that because of this, I need to show how how/why homosexuals shoudl be so excluded..

Nothing I have posted in any way implies this.

I argued two things:
-Marriage is a privilege
-The EP clause necesitates that if a state offers a privilege to some people, it must then offer the same priveleg to MOST other people.

Both of these are unassailable, and neither of them support your supposition.
 
I argued two things:
-Marriage is a privilege
-The EP clause necesitates that if a state offers a privilege to some people, it must then offer the same priveleg to MOST other people.

Both of these are unassailable, and neither of them support your supposition.

So that means you'd have no problem with, say, the government denying blacks the ability to get married, or denying women the ability to get a driver's license. After all, these are privileges and don't have to apply to everyone, under your way of thinking.
 
So that means you'd have no problem with, say, the government denying blacks the ability to get married, or denying women the ability to get a driver's license. After all, these are privileges and don't have to apply to everyone, under your way of thinking.
So you -ARE- being deliberately obtuse.
That being the case, I really cannot help you.
 
So you -ARE- being deliberately obtuse.
That being the case, I really cannot help you.

Meaning you don't want to answer because it would reveal the true absurdity of your position.

Gotcha.
 
Marriage is not a right - it is a privilege granted by the state; said privilege can be removed by a simple act of legislature.
No words from any court can override that fact.

Given that the right to marriage has been upheld more than once by the supreme court, I imagine that any state tries to do away with marriage would be smacked down by a judge pretty quickly due to the enormous amount of precedent.

The words of a court tend to be very powerful and can override a lot of things.

You might not like it, but it is what it is.
 
Meaning you don't want to answer because it would reveal the true absurdity of your position.
No.... meaning that your post clearly inditcates that you are either not paying attention, or you ARE paying attention and simply choose to play stupid.

NOTHING in my two positions would lead anyone that is actually paying attention to your conclusion.
 
Given that the right to marriage has been upheld more than once by the supreme court, I imagine that any state tries to do away with marriage would be smacked down by a judge pretty quickly due to the enormous amount of precedent.
I -laughed- at this. No offense intended in that...

There's nothing that keeps any state from repealing its marriage laws.
tell me -- on what constitutional basis would such a ruling turn? Can you cite any isntance where a court ruled that a state could not repeal a law?

And then, aside from the entire issue of the seperation of powers....

If marriage -is- a right, then the laws regarding marriage are not necessary -- marriage will exist without those laws, and so repealing the laws does nothing to change anything. No court will stop a state from repealing a law when repealing that law has no effect on anyone.

(The fact that marriage will cease to exist if the laws are repealed necessitate that marriage is a privilege)
 
1. No state has done it yet, but the moment they tried, they would be sued to get the law to be overturned.

2. Just because its not in the constitution doesn't mean the right is recognized.

3. Rights only exist where they are agreed to by society through its established governing institutions. The notion that something is a right outside of established laws, court decisions, regulatory bodies, etc is just wishful thinking. Even the rights in the constitutions are just laws. They happen to be laws in a higher order document, but if the constitution didn't exist, than those rights wouldn't exist.
 
Last edited:
1. No state has done it yet, but the moment they tried, they would be sued to get the law to be overturned.
-On what constitutional basis (state or federal) would such a ruling turn?
-Can you cite any isntance where a court ruled that a state could not repeal a law?
2. Just because its not in the constitution doesn't mean the right is recognized.
Not sure how this applies here...?
3. Rights only exist where they are agreed to by society through its established governing institutions. The notion that something is a right outside of established laws, court decisions, regulatory bodies, etc is just wishful thinking.
Again...not sure how this applies here...?
 
-On what constitutional basis (state or federal) would such a ruling turn?
-Can you cite any isntance where a court ruled that a state could not repeal a law?

Not sure how this applies here...?

Again...not sure how this applies here...?

I think you and I are looking at this from far too different perspectives and since we both believe we are right, its pretty useless to argue. But good luck with your theories.
 
I think you and I are looking at this from far too different perspectives and since we both believe we are right, its pretty useless to argue. But good luck with your theories.
Interesting response, given all I did was asked you to support your position by describing the constitutional basis upon which any such decision would turn.

If the court can stop a legislature from passing legislation that repeals a law, why can't it force a legislature to pass a law (to some effect)?
 
Voluntary said:
I see marriage as nothing more than a contract between two or more people. I believe that people have the right to come voluntarily together and form contracts and when you violate that right, you violate liberty.
I second this post.
 
Back
Top Bottom