• 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
LaMidRighter said:
The idea of freedom of religion is at the core of the entire arguement. Religions are exempted from many things within the law because of very specific core beliefs held within. This is at the heart of the first amendment itself. All religions have some form of marriage ceremony and marriage is a religious rite, civil marriages, while technically called that are nothing more than recognized civil unions. The rite aspect of marriage is what makes it a right.

Nope, you have to get a license to get married, which is why it can be tried in civil court. That is law which is directly against the first. Marriage is a covenant, not a true contract, that was a failing years ago in an effort to make more tax dollars. Ask yourself why. Then ask yourself how governments got to license a religious ceremony, there is plenty of good reading on the subject. The rite predates any law, the first amendment of the constitution predates any law regulating marriage, thus the laws are not within the true spirit of the constitution as they civilly regulate something that is protected as religious.
Click to expand...
Okay, so it seems we're hung up on a definition. I'd argue that while marriage has its roots in religion, those roots go back to a times when there was no distinction between religion and law. Religion WAS the law in many case. In places were religion and law were distinct, the law was immediately used to enforce this "rite."

As for modern day marriage, we're talking about two distinct things--marriage as a religious ceremony and marriage as a contract. I don't believe that we have an argument here beyond the already well-worn discussion about "marriage vs. civil union," but the OP already suggests that creating a bright line distinction between these is highly unlikely. I hate getting bogged down in semantic arguments. I'd stipulate that "marriage," in the context of a discussion about "rights" has to be a legal concept.

I don't think anyone wants to force churches to violate their tenets by forcing anyone to perform a rite that doesn't make sense within that particular religion.
 
Rassales said:
I don't think anyone wants to force churches to violate their tenets by forcing anyone to perform a rite that doesn't make sense within that particular religion.
Click to expand...

So why are we preventing churches that see nothing wrong with gay marriages from being able to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples?
 
samsmart said:
So why are we preventing churches that see nothing wrong with gay marriages from being able to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples?
Click to expand...
We aren't. It's just that, at this moment, those marriage ceremonies don't have the force of law in most states.

But it's important to remember that the whole question of "rights" is a matter for the courts to decide, based on the Constitution. This question hasn't received a full airing before the courts, but it will.
 
samsmart said:
So atheists aren't allowed to get married?
Click to expand...

Depends on what you deffine a marraige to be. In effect both civil contracts and religious ceremonies (registered and licenced to perform the legal side of things) are the same things, but for some reason the religious among us wish to own the term "Marraige".

So I suppose the answer is as far as an athiest and the law is concerned they are married, but as far as a church is concerned, they aren't.

Confused yet?
 
samsmart said:
So why are we preventing churches that see nothing wrong with gay marriages from being able to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples?
Click to expand...

You can't. And you aren't. However the civil side of the ceremony can't happen and therfor a civil partnership wasn't performed in the eyes of the law.

Interestingly, strictly speaking, a divorcee can't get remarried in a Catholic church without getting an annulment, for much the same reason. Only the other way around.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Nope, marriage is a religious rite that pre-dates any modern law, contract law, and even most religions, including christianity. That said, since marriage is a religious function, under U.S. constitutional law it is automatically an individual right under the first amendment. The government has hijacked that and turned it over to contract law so that it could be taxed and regulated. You are supposed to have the right to seek it out IF a religion will perform the ceremony, you do not have a right to force a religion to.
Click to expand...

that's about how i see it!!

thank you!!

mtm1963
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
As long as government is handing out benefits and privileges with tax dollars, then marriage is a right and must be extended to all consenting adults in whatever combination they wish.
Click to expand...

This is incorrect. Government hands out benefits and privileges to single mothers, children, and the permanently disabled. That doesn't mean that it has to give those same privileges to everyone. Government has the authority to take particular privileges and give them to groups that it believes deserve those benefits.

Get government out of the equation, then marriage is nothing more than free association with rules determined by whatever groups and organizations people associate with; and hence, not a right.
Click to expand...

This is clearly the best solution.

samsmart said:
However, the 14th Amendment provides us with the Equal Protection Clause that demands that "no state shall... deny a person in it's jurisdiction equal protection of the laws." Under the Constitution, that limits the limitations that the government can place on marriage. For instance, the government cannot encourage social contracts for only marriages of people of the same race. Therefore, the government should not discourage social contracts for marriages of people of the same gender.
Click to expand...

It's very dubious whether this applies to gay marriage for a multitude of reasons.
 
RightinNYC said:
This is incorrect. Government hands out benefits and privileges to single mothers, children, and the permanently disabled. That doesn't mean that it has to give those same privileges to everyone. Government has the authority to take particular privileges and give them to groups that it believes deserve those benefits.
Click to expand...

All other factors being equal, does government deny benefits to single mothers, children and the permanently disabled because they're gay?
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
All other factors being equal, does government deny benefits to single mothers, children and the permanently disabled because they're gay?
Click to expand...

No, because whether or not those individuals are gay is unrelated to the particular social aims that the government is trying to incentivize.
 
Ya know why divorces cost so much??---cause they are worth every dime.
 
Marriage isn't a "right" per se, but it is a socially expected act and as such, is going to continue whether supported by the government or not. However, equality is most certainly a "right" as defined in our founding documents so limiting marriage to one group of people and restricting it in another is a plain violation of that equality standard.
 
Rassales said:
Okay, so it seems we're hung up on a definition. I'd argue that while marriage has its roots in religion, those roots go back to a times when there was no distinction between religion and law. Religion WAS the law in many case. In places were religion and law were distinct, the law was immediately used to enforce this "rite."
Click to expand...
All laws have a basis in morality, be that religion or cultural normative behaviors, that being said, the rite of marriage is just that, it is a sacrament in the christian religion, not familiar with the synonyms from other beliefs, but either way, "civil marriage" as in a justice of the peace ceremony is not a religious function, rather that of a civil law creation, that being said, there need to be two distinctions, that of a civil union or marriage. Justice of the peace ceremonies should be recognized as civil unions, in a twist, legally, so should sanctified marriages, that would clear up much confusion, a marriage and a civil union are similar, the difference is who performs the ceremony. Now, to further the argument, if it is the case that a legal recognition is required, something I firmly hold that the government should have little business in, if it came down to a marriage and civil union falling under the exact same catagory, then the equal protections clause of the U.S. Constitution is a factor, and all citizens and guests of our country would fall under the required protections therein.

As for modern day marriage, we're talking about two distinct things--marriage as a religious ceremony and marriage as a contract. I don't believe that we have an argument here beyond the already well-worn discussion about "marriage vs. civil union," but the OP already suggests that creating a bright line distinction between these is highly unlikely. I hate getting bogged down in semantic arguments. I'd stipulate that "marriage," in the context of a discussion about "rights" has to be a legal concept.
Click to expand...
Not really, marriage is a specific thing, as is a civil union.

I don't think anyone wants to force churches to violate their tenets by forcing anyone to perform a rite that doesn't make sense within that particular religion.
Click to expand...
You would be surprised what others would force upon people they disagree with.
 
Marriage ensures paternity, codifies inheritance of property, and reduces tribal friction by placing otherwise available young women off limits. Any religious connotations are relatively incidental, pursuant to churches extending social control.
 
No, it's a form of torture.

It's not American to torture and we must stop letting innocent people from getting married.
 
LaMidRighter said:
All laws have a basis in morality, be that religion or cultural normative behaviors, that being said, the rite of marriage is just that, it is a sacrament in the christian religion, not familiar with the synonyms from other beliefs, but either way, "civil marriage" as in a justice of the peace ceremony is not a religious function, rather that of a civil law creation, that being said, there need to be two distinctions, that of a civil union or marriage. Justice of the peace ceremonies should be recognized as civil unions, in a twist, legally, so should sanctified marriages, that would clear up much confusion, a marriage and a civil union are similar, the difference is who performs the ceremony. Now, to further the argument, if it is the case that a legal recognition is required, something I firmly hold that the government should have little business in, if it came down to a marriage and civil union falling under the exact same catagory, then the equal protections clause of the U.S. Constitution is a factor, and all citizens and guests of our country would fall under the required protections therein.
Click to expand...
I have no particular problem with this idea, but I don't think it will create the distinction you're looking for, and I'm not sure it's legal.

First, what you suggest is pretty much exactly what gay marriage advocates want, since under your idea, gays could get married. You can go to a church that doesn't marry people of the same sex to each other. Another person can go to (even start) a church that does recognize same sex marriage. Both of you get ceremonies, both of you would be "married." There are very few requirements under the law to be recognized as a church or as clergy--a good thing since we don't want government determining the difference between "legitimate" and "illegitimate" faiths. There might be churches that exist for the sole purpose of same sex marriage.

Is that what you're looking for?

Not really, marriage is a specific thing, as is a civil union.
Click to expand...
And apparently the only difference is that one is sanctified by a "church" and one is not. I'm not sure the law has any business in that argument. Which leaves us with everyone's having a "civil union" and some choosing to call that union "marriage." What's to stop someone calling his/her relationship a "marriage" if they wish? Is that a question for the law?
You would be surprised what others would force upon people they disagree with.
Click to expand...
No, I wouldn't be surprised, but I asked you for some backing to your claim and you've given none. A general suspicion of all humanity means little.
 
Rassales said:
I have no particular problem with this idea, but I don't think it will create the distinction you're looking for, and I'm not sure it's legal.

First, what you suggest is pretty much exactly what gay marriage advocates want, since under your idea, gays could get married. You can go to a church that doesn't marry people of the same sex to each other. Another person can go to (even start) a church that does recognize same sex marriage. Both of you get ceremonies, both of you would be "married." There are very few requirements under the law to be recognized as a church or as clergy--a good thing since we don't want government determining the difference between "legitimate" and "illegitimate" faiths. There might be churches that exist for the sole purpose of same sex marriage.

Is that what you're looking for?
Click to expand...
I'm straight, so I really don't have a dog in the fight in that regard. What I am looking for is for us as a society to get back to following constitutional principles.

And apparently the only difference is that one is sanctified by a "church" and one is not. I'm not sure the law has any business in that argument. Which leaves us with everyone's having a "civil union" and some choosing to call that union "marriage." What's to stop someone calling his/her relationship a "marriage" if they wish? Is that a question for the law?
No, I wouldn't be surprised, but I asked you for some backing to your claim and you've given none. A general suspicion of all humanity means little.
Click to expand...
Very simple, my answer was long winded. In both a secular and faith union, there are witnesses and a signatory. The only reason we would need to have any government recognition at all is for tax and benefits implications, so why not just eliminate the governments status bases in the tax code or apply the equal protections clause to all sanctioned unions.
 
Well, after all is said and done from the looks of things this is where the contention mainly lies with regards to gay marriage. All other things seems more like a side deal than anything else.

Perhaps it is time for the Federal Government to decide if marriage is a right or not. In straight terms instead of suggesting that it is via privileges given.
 
spud_meister said:
as an act between two people, yes
Click to expand...

That's wide open for abuse.
Another is, when you use the argument gay marriage is OK because they love each other, where do you draw the line and why... if you move it for gays, why not for others in love?

Mother and Daughter?
Mother and Granddaughter?
Father and son?
Father and grandson?
Father and daughter?
Mother and son?
Under aged?
Cousins?

For a start...

.
 
Yes.

Because free speech is a right, and any two (or more, even) people can claim they are married.
Even if there are no religious or civil ceremonies performed, who is to say they are not?
Unless you legally prohibit people from stating they are married unless some religious or civil ceremony is performed (which would violate their right to free speech).

For that matter, two someones could start calling marriage some random word, like "icklzra", and start claiming they had been "icklzraed".

What's the difference?

This argument probably has some holes in it, but my sinuses are not fully healthy atm and it may be affecting my brain. :mrgreen:
 
The Mark said:
Yes.

Because free speech is a right, and any two (or more, even) people can claim they are married.
Even if there are no religious or civil ceremonies performed, who is to say they are not?
Unless you legally prohibit people from stating they are married unless some religious or civil ceremony is performed (which would violate their right to free speech).

For that matter, two someones could start calling marriage some random word, like "icklzra", and start claiming they had been "icklzraed".

What's the difference?

This argument probably has some holes in it, but my sinuses are not fully healthy atm and it may be affecting my brain. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Actually it is the same reasoning that protects people that burn the American flag. If an act such as burning the American flag is considered free speech then wouldn't an act such as being married fall into the same catagory?
 
zimmer said:
That's wide open for abuse.
Another is, when you use the argument gay marriage is OK because they love each other, where do you draw the line and why... if you move it for gays, why not for others in love?

Mother and Daughter?
Mother and Granddaughter?
Father and son?
Father and grandson?
Father and daughter?
Mother and son?
Under aged?
Cousins?

For a start...

.
Click to expand...

Incest has not been allowed for two reasons.

1: Because of genetic concerns. Any resultant baby has a higher chance of being deformed either physically or mentally. Such a thing would be detriment to society. Therefore it would not be allowed.

2: Because of the closeness that family members share it is easy for the older person to take advantage of such a situation and in essence brainwash the younger person. Brainwashing takes away ones freedom to choose of their own volition. Even though they may think it is of their own volition it is not.

Underage would not be allowed because we consider those that are of a certain age (under 18) to not be mentally competant enough to make any sort of decision of the kind of magnitude that marriage comes with. Since a condition of being married, or entering into any sort of contract, requires that a person know and understand all implications someone that is underage would not be allowed to enter into it.
 
zimmer said:
That's wide open for abuse.
Another is, when you use the argument gay marriage is OK because they love each other, where do you draw the line and why... if you move it for gays, why not for others in love?

Mother and Daughter?
Mother and Granddaughter?
Father and son?
Father and grandson?
Father and daughter?
Mother and son?
Under aged?
Cousins?

For a start...

.
Click to expand...

For one thing, it's a legal contract so therefore anyone who is underage cannot take part because they cannot legally enter into contracts. Otherwise, most of the rest fall under social taboos, mostly from the days when offspring between close family members had a decent chance of being defective. With modern medical technology, that's not quite the problem that it once was. It would probably be a bitter pill to swallow for most people, just because it is such a long-time taboo, but anyone who is going to engage in it is going to do so whether they are married or not, so really, I don't have an incredibly massive problem with it, other than the automatic "ewww" factor that we've been raised with.
 
Cephus said:
For one thing, it's a legal contract so therefore anyone who is underage cannot take part because they cannot legally enter into contracts.
Click to expand...
Not true, judicial emancipation or a parent signing a waiver to allow underaged teens around 17 or so and marriage is allowed in many states.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Not true, judicial emancipation or a parent signing a waiver to allow underaged teens around 17 or so and marriage is allowed in many states.
Click to expand...

Last I knew, it could be done as young as 13 in some states, although that could have changed. But you're still getting a legal adult to make the contract and there are limitations. Certainly an emancipated minor is considered to be an adult in most ways and therefore can enter into legal contracts.

These are all exceptions, certainly not the rule.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom