• 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
Cephus said:
Funny, there were people who considered slavery to be part of their religion, I guess we ought to rescind civil rights and reinstate slavery, huh?
Click to expand...

Slavery causes harm and loss of freedom/civil liberty to large numbers of people.

Marriage does not (at least not directly :mrgreen:).

Perhaps I should clarify my statement: "What I AM against is the creation of laws to regulate something many persons consider part of their religion. Unless, of course, said something causes harm to others without their consent."

I would not take much issue, personally, if gay marriage were made legal in all 50 states. I might not prefer it, due to lingering training in my formative years, but it wouldn't really bother me all that much.

However, as I view the institution of marriage as a religious one, I have issue with regulations upon it being made by civil governments. Barring, of course, indirect ones, such as those preventing people from performing human sacrifice during a marriage ceremony. (I assume there are such).
 
The issue of civil performance of same sex marriage presents no threat to archaic religious ceremonies and customs.

If some bigots running business..er...church, don't want to marry same sex couples, they don't have to.

Simple as that.

The issue is the state recognition of the validity of the contract when presented to the civil authorities.

That's it.

Some doesn't like same sex marriage? Well, they'll have to marry someone from the other sex.

How simple can it get?
 
Marriage is not a right.

Denying someone the ability to marry because of their sexual orientation is a self-defeating religious ploy that further alienates the religious right and makes it seem even more and more exclusive that it usually comes across as. :mrgreen:


:doh
 
I have never had a relationship that i felt the government needed to be involed in,
 
Z3n said:
Marriage is not a right.

Denying someone the ability to marry because of their sexual orientation is a self-defeating religious ploy that further alienates the religious right and makes it seem even more and more exclusive that it usually comes across as. :mrgreen:


:doh
Click to expand...


The "religious right"?

You mean besides the fact that at a minimum, 22% of the Messiah voters in California cast ballots in favor of the bigoted Proposition 8? You mean that wing of the "religious right"?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
The "religious right"?

You mean besides the fact that at a minimum, 22% of the Messiah voters in California cast ballots in favor of the bigoted Proposition 8? You mean that wing of the "religious right"?
Click to expand...

Not going to engage in informal discourse with someone as narrow minded as this. The religious African American community voted prop 8 down, and it would be conducive that they would also vote republican. The fact that they voted down prop 8 still means that they are more conservative, regardless of ethnicity or them being "Messiah voters". What an ignorant statement
 
Z3n said:
Not going to engage in informal discourse with someone as narrow minded as this.
Click to expand...

Naturally not.

I just cited an irrefutable fact, a fact that refutes your contention that the anti-gay marriage bigots are solely in the so-called "religious right".

You don't want to address that, so your going to claim the person refuting your moronic statement is "narrow minded".

Z3n said:
The religious African American community voted prop 8 down,
Click to expand...

Not possible, considering the numbers of pro-Obama votes that had to be cast to make the Prop 8 numbers consistent with the Obama/McCain numbers.

Good try, but the electoral data disproves what you said.

Besides, the African American religious community is bigoted, unless you're trying to ignore the Church Obama attended for two decades.

Z3n said:
and it would be conducive that they would also vote republican.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that argument didn't work.

Keep trying.

22% or more of the Obama bigots voted for Proposition 8.


Z3n said:
The fact that they voted down prop 8 still means that they are more conservative, regardless of ethnicity or them being "Messiah voters". What an ignorant statement
Click to expand...

Hmmmm.

Let's have a mini-poll here.

How many think we should inform Z3n that if he knew anything about what he was babbling about, he'd know that the Yes vote on Prop 8 was the anti-gay marriage vote?

The Obama voters PASSED Prop 8.

Should we tell him, or let him remain ignorant?
 
The Mark said:
However, as I view the institution of marriage as a religious one, I have issue with regulations upon it being made by civil governments. Barring, of course, indirect ones, such as those preventing people from performing human sacrifice during a marriage ceremony. (I assume there are such).
Click to expand...

You can view it any way you want, but guess what? We have a secular state, thus any religious arguments you make are automatically invalid. Further, whether you like the legal institution of marriage or not, it's already in place and not going away, therefore we're not talking about creating new laws, but in equalizing the existing laws already on the books. We did that for voting, we did that for civil rights, it's something that needs to happen for marriage as well.

You're just blowing into the wind.
 
Rassales said:
You are making what de Toqueville called "a distinction without a difference."
Click to expand...
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.

Tell you what--explain to me how the right of equal protection doesn't make marriage a right...
Click to expand...
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.
 
Cephus said:
You can view it any way you want, but guess what? We have a secular state, thus any religious arguments you make are automatically invalid.
Click to expand...
It would seem that the reverse is also true...secular arguments are automatically invalid when made against a religious entity.

But I wasn't attempting to make a religious argument.

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.

However, I suppose that if my argument were valid, persons of a given persuasion (in this case, opposition to same-sex marriage) could at any time form a religion and claim whatever term was in use violated their religious beliefs.

Cephus said:
Further, whether you like the legal institution of marriage or not, it's already in place and not going away, therefore we're not talking about creating new laws, but in equalizing the existing laws already on the books. We did that for voting, we did that for civil rights, it's something that needs to happen for marriage as well.
Click to expand...
I am all for equalizing the existing laws. In fact, I thought that is what I was arguing for.

Cephus said:
You're just blowing into the wind.
Click to expand...

Perhaps.
 
The Mark said:
It would seem that the reverse is also true...secular arguments are automatically invalid when made against a religious entity.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Goobieman said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Rassales said:
Except that voting IS a right...
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, yes you are.
 
Goobieman said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Rassales said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
The question asked here is if marriage is a right or a privilege.
The correct answer is that it is a priviliege.
 
Goobieman said:
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.
Click to expand...
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:
Rassales said:
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.
Click to expand...
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,"...
Click to expand...
The correct phrase is 'priviliges and immunities'. My bad.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Rassales said:
That's true, but only because minors do not YET have all the privileges of full citizenship...
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Except for some, examples of which have just beem provided.
Show me where the 14th amendment mentions any of these groups you mention.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
(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.
 
Goobieman said:
Whatever the reason, the 14th does not apply.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Rassales said:
No, it doesn't apply YET. That alone defeats your comparison.
Click to expand...
No, it doesnt. The fact remains that some groups, as noted, CAN be denied privilges and immunities that are otherwise protected by the 14th. Minor and non-citzens clearly and inarguably fall among the classes of people that only enjoy limited protection from the 14th.
And your examples don't hold up to scrutiny.
Click to expand...
This is laughable.
Wow. Now that is circular.
Click to expand...
Only if you re-define 'circular'.
And it would pretty much end all debate of any kind on any legal issue.
Click to expand...
hardly.
YOU seem to think that the EP clause necessarily protects -everyone- from -every- form of discrimination by the state when awarding -any and all-privileges.
It doesn't. This is why -I- said "most".
You're caught up in minutia here...
Click to expand...
Seems to me that if you're going to dscuss someting, you should be as accurate as posisble. You can ignore the minutia if you want, but then you wind up being wrong.
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.
Click to expand...
You cannot argue that the 14th protects a certian group from discrimination until a court rules. You CAN argue that it should. These are different discussions, and not interchangeable concepts.

As it stands, and to my knowledge, the court has not yet ruled that states cannot discriminate against homosexuals when granting privileges - expanding the list of 'protected groups' to include homosexuals - and as such, you cannot say that the 14ht DOES protect them, rendering such discrimination in violation of the Constitution.

You may argue that it SHOULD so protect them at your leisure.
 
Goobieman said:
No, it doesnt. The fact remains that some groups, as noted, CAN be denied privilges and immunities that are otherwise protected by the 14th. Minor and non-citzens clearly and inarguably fall among the classes of people that only enjoy limited protection from the 14th.

This is laughable.
Click to expand...
I think your examples are laughable, so I guess we're even.
hardly.
YOU seem to think that the EP clause necessarily protects -everyone- from -every- form of discrimination by the state when awarding -any and all-privileges.
It doesn't. This is why -I- said "most".
Click to expand...
Now you are creating a strawman. I think the EP clause protects individuals in many cases, but not all. The key is finding a state interest in making the recognizing the difference.

For example, minors don't have free speech rights equal to adults, but the infringement of their rights has to serve some interest. If a student protest disrupts the operation of a school, it's not allowed, but simple black armbands are okay.

What's the state interest in denying same-sex couples a marriage license?

Seems to me that if you're going to dscuss someting, you should be as accurate as posisble. You can ignore the minutia if you want, but then you wind up being wrong.
Click to expand...
And I think if you're going to make such a tiny distinction, you should do so early in the discussion, rather than using it as a way of derailing that discussion later. Playing "gotcha" over something like this serves little purpose (other than to play games), but if you insist, we can play by your silly rules. I'll stipulate that we search and replace "should" for "does." Happy?
 
Rassales said:
Now you are creating a strawman. I think the EP clause protects individuals in many cases, but not all. The key is finding a state interest in making the recognizing the difference.
Click to expand...

The EP clause protects everyone equally. All minors are protected equally, they are just not provided the same set of rights and responsibilities as adults, but every minor has the same set of rights and responsibilities as other minors. You don't see black kids being held to one standard and gay kids to another and hispanics to another, they are equal across the board.

That's exactly what needs to happen with marriage. Anyone who is legally able to be married *AT ALL* ought to be able to marry anyone else who is legally able to be married *AT ALL*.
 
Rassales said:
I think your examples are laughable...
Click to expand...
Only because they are examples of how you are wrong.
You can refuse to admit you are wrong, but you're still wrong.

Now you are creating a strawman. I think the EP clause protects individuals in many cases, but not all.
Click to expand...
So you DO argree with my use of the word "most".
Thank you.
 
Goobieman said:
Only because they are examples of how you are wrong.
You can refuse to admit you are wrong, but you're still wrong.
Click to expand...
Back at ya.

You could ask me to substantiate my claim, but you just want to say I'm wrong. I've asked you to substantiate yours (or at least explain it) but you refuse. I guess we're at an impasse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom