• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is marriage a civil right or a privilege?

CriticalThought said:
Is marriage a civil right that is protected by the Constitution or is it a privilege that can be decided by a vote from the people?

I wonder if Loving versus Virginia had not struck down the laws criminalizing interracial marriage in 19 states, how long it would have been before the people in all those states voted to allow interracial couples to marry. Why shouldn't we allow the people in some states to vote on it now? I'm pretty sure we could drum up a majority in at least a few southern states to pass Constitutional Amendments in those states to once again ban interracial marriage.

A lot of people now expect the government to discriminate on the basis on sex in order to regulate marriage. The government is apparently suppose to enforce gender roles in marriage for no other reason than a lot of people like the tradition of having those gender roles. Apparently some people believe the government exists to support archaic traditions, no matter how those traditions may hurt people. Those people like to argue that protecting a meaningless tradition is more important than the freedom for an individual to choose the intimate partner they wish to share the rest of their life with, and they wish to use the government to broadcast their disapproval by creating new laws. They then then drum up a majority using fear mongering tactics and amend state constitutions to secure their vision.

Personally, I think marriage is a civil right. The Supreme Court has historically agreed with me and argued that marriage is a "fundamental" right. Marriage is a law and the Constitution guarantees equal protection of the laws. It is a Constitutional right.
Click to expand...

As it stands now, marriage is part of a larger, fundamental right. Right to contract.
 
CriticalThought said:
Is marriage a civil right that is protected by the Constitution or is it a privilege that can be decided by a vote from the people?

I wonder if Loving versus Virginia had not struck down the laws criminalizing interracial marriage in 19 states, how long it would have been before the people in all those states voted to allow interracial couples to marry. Why shouldn't we allow the people in some states to vote on it now? I'm pretty sure we could drum up a majority in at least a few southern states to pass Constitutional Amendments in those states to once again ban interracial marriage.

A lot of people now expect the government to discriminate on the basis on sex in order to regulate marriage. The government is apparently suppose to enforce gender roles in marriage for no other reason than a lot of people like the tradition of having those gender roles. Apparently some people believe the government exists to support archaic traditions, no matter how those traditions may hurt people. Those people like to argue that protecting a meaningless tradition is more important than the freedom for an individual to choose the intimate partner they wish to share the rest of their life with, and they wish to use the government to broadcast their disapproval by creating new laws. They then then drum up a majority using fear mongering tactics and amend state constitutions to secure their vision.

Personally, I think marriage is a civil right. The Supreme Court has historically agreed with me and argued that marriage is a "fundamental" right. Marriage is a law and the Constitution guarantees equal protection of the laws. It is a Constitutional right.
Click to expand...

Exactly where in the COTUS is marriage even mentioned. And if it is not mentioned how is it covered? This statement is silly
 
Viktyr Gehrig said:
Marriage is not a civil right, it is a societal institution, and while striking down the laws against interracial marriage was morally correct, it was not legally correct for the Supreme Court to do so. I feel much the same way about same sex marriage, but would be willing to settle for a definitive Supreme Court decision-- I care much more about the right thing being done than about how it gets done.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. Marriage as a union is a social issue. Denying Gays the right to marry is a constitutional one covered by the 14th.
I hope people can see the difference.
 
wolfman24 said:
Exactly where in the COTUS is marriage even mentioned. And if it is not mentioned how is it covered? This statement is silly
Click to expand...

9th and 10th amendment. And regardless this became issue when government usurped marriage.
 
wolfman24 said:
Exactly where in the COTUS is marriage even mentioned. And if it is not mentioned how is it covered? This statement is silly
Click to expand...

Really? Seriously? The whole "Where does it say ____ in the Constitution?" is one of the most nonsensical political arguments that pops up on this forum. Are you really that much of an originalist that if it isn't stated explicitly in the Constitution itself, then it can't be a Constitutional right? The Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution states, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Can you really not see how that might apply to marriage? Marriage is a law.
 
wolfman24 said:
Exactly where in the COTUS is marriage even mentioned. And if it is not mentioned how is it covered? This statement is silly
Click to expand...

It's covered because a) many rights are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution but are still guaranteed and b) the 14th Amendment says that people must be treated equally under the law, and marriage is part of the law.
 
smk7 said:
But it makes no sense to speak of a "heterosexual marriage" if the very definition of marriage is not two people but a man and a woman: Marriage IS heterosexual, so there can be no other kind.

One could say "if a heterosexual business partnership is allowed by the state, then a homosexual business partnership must also be recognized under the equal protection clause".

But to say homosexual marriage must be allowed because hetero is allowed ignores that "marriage" itself means the union of a man and a woman.
Click to expand...
Well it may mean that to you and like thinkers, but not everyone agrees with you hence all the problems. Its really a matter of opinion. Opinions are not written in stone in case you did not know. I am sure that there are some gays that think that hetero marriage is wrong. Or that there are people homo/hetero that dont think that marriage between anyone is good.

My suggestion though is you are opposed to same sex marriage that you should not marry someone of the same sex. Or if its your church's opinion that only a man and a women should be allowed to get married well then by all means ban gay marriage in your church. But dont try to dictate what other church's should or should not ban. You do remember that the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion? Interpretation of marriage is a religious issue among other things like personal opinion.
 
CriticalThought said:
Really? Seriously? The whole "Where does it say ____ in the Constitution?" is one of the most nonsensical political arguments that pops up on this forum. Are you really that much of an originalist that if it isn't stated explicitly in the Constitution itself, then it can't be a Constitutional right? The Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution states, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Can you really not see how that might apply to marriage? Marriage is a law.
Click to expand...

How is marriage a law? where does it say that? Its a legal contract but that is not a law. Is entering into a business arrangement a law? No its a legal contract which is binding on both parties and has provisions in it which explains the responsibilities of each.

The 14th does not apply in the context of a marraige as a legal issue But you are right in that the statement "shall not make or enforce any law which shall abridge the priviledges and immunities and so on would apply to marriage as far as actions of the states against it but not as such.

So marriage as a legal contract is not covered in COTUS literally or otherwise. It was not under Chief Justice John Marshall stated in his SCOTUS opinion early in the 19th century that all written contracts are legal and binding by law did the legality even come into play. Before that marriage was considered a sacred institution binding by the will of GOD.
 
roguenuke said:
It's covered because a) many rights are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution but are still guaranteed and b) the 14th Amendment says that people must be treated equally under the law, and marriage is part of the law.
Click to expand...

Already answered this in another post.
 
wolfman24 said:
How is marriage a law? where does it say that? Its a legal contract but that is not a law. Is entering into a business arrangement a law? No its a legal contract which is binding on both parties and has provisions in it which explains the responsibilities of each.

The 14th does not apply in the context of a marraige as a legal issue But you are right in that the statement "shall not make or enforce any law which shall abridge the priviledges and immunities and so on would apply to marriage as far as actions of the states against it but not as such.

So marriage as a legal contract is not covered in COTUS literally or otherwise. It was not under Chief Justice John Marshall stated in his SCOTUS opinion early in the 19th century that all written contracts are legal and binding by law did the legality even come into play. Before that marriage was considered a sacred institution binding by the will of GOD.
Click to expand...

A legal contract is a product of LAW! It literally has the word LEGAL in it! What on earth do you think LEGAL means?

le·gal
/ˈlēgəl/

Adjective

-Of, based on, or concerned with the law: "the American legal system".
-Appointed or required by the law: "a legal requirement".
Click to expand...

You fundamentally do not understand marriage law.

Rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are 1,138[1] statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. These rights and responsibilities apply to only male-female couples, from the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
Click to expand...

Tell me how you can acquire those legal benefits, rights, and privileges through a "business arrangement"?

And I'm not sure why you would argue that the 14th amendment does not apply to marriage when SCOTUS has already applied it to marriage to overturn interracial marriage bans in Loving vs. Virginia. That argument makes absolutely no sense.
 
Last edited:
'You shall not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination....Leviticus..

So these guys/girls want a church wedding...??

A wedding is a promise to love and care for each other...with no other coming between you..and your offspring shall be blessed..

It is not Sodom...
 
CriticalThought said:
Really? Seriously? The whole "Where does it say ____ in the Constitution?" is one of the most nonsensical political arguments that pops up on this forum. Are you really that much of an originalist that if it isn't stated explicitly in the Constitution itself, then it can't be a Constitutional right? The Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution states, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Can you really not see how that might apply to marriage? Marriage is a law.
Click to expand...

Plus, you know, the 9th amendment explicitly says that the fact that some rights are enumerated in the constitution does NOT mean that other rights do not exist. The constitution itself shoots down the "it does't say ____ in the constitution" argument. You have a right unless the law says you don't, not the other way around.

wolfman24 said:
How is marriage a law? where does it say that? Its a legal contract but that is not a law. Is entering into a business arrangement a law? No its a legal contract which is binding on both parties and has provisions in it which explains the responsibilities of each.
Click to expand...

MARRIAGE IS NOT GOVERNED BY CONTRACT LAW!! AAARRRGGHHH!! WHY DO PEOPLE KEEP SAYING THIS!?!?

Seriously, learn the damn law before you make statements like this.

So marriage as a legal contract is not covered in COTUS literally or otherwise. It was not under Chief Justice John Marshall stated in his SCOTUS opinion early in the 19th century that all written contracts are legal and binding by law did the legality even come into play. Before that marriage was considered a sacred institution binding by the will of GOD.
Click to expand...

I... um... ugh... Please see a lawyer before attempting to enter into any contracts, or really any kind of legal relationship with anyone or anything. You clearly need the help.
 
wolfie said:
'You shall not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination....Leviticus..

So these guys/girls want a church wedding...??

A wedding is a promise to love and care for each other...with no other coming between you..and your offspring shall be blessed..

It is not Sodom...
Click to expand...

First, you don't get to determine what goes on in every single church there is. There are churches out there that support same sex marriage and have no issue with homosexuality. It isn't a sin. They have a different interpretation of many of the rules in the Bible than you. And Leviticus is not a good thing to quote to enforce your beliefs since Leviticus contains many rules/sins/abominations that no Christian church follows or even considers wrong/sinful now.

Second, Sodom absolutely nothing to do with either same sex marriages nor homosexuality. The story of Sodom says nothing about homosexuality, let alone same sex marriage being legal. The only mention of any possible same sex sex would have been the attempted rape of the angels, which has nothing to do with sexuality nor marriage. The Bible and all the stories it was based off of explain that Sodom was destroyed because of greed and inhospitality mainly. The only other sins mentioned from Sodom would have been adultery, men sleeping with other men's wives and the attempted rape.
 
wolfman24 said:
How is marriage a law? where does it say that? Its a legal contract but that is not a law. Is entering into a business arrangement a law? No its a legal contract which is binding on both parties and has provisions in it which explains the responsibilities of each.

The 14th does not apply in the context of a marraige as a legal issue But you are right in that the statement "shall not make or enforce any law which shall abridge the priviledges and immunities and so on would apply to marriage as far as actions of the states against it but not as such.

So marriage as a legal contract is not covered in COTUS literally or otherwise. It was not under Chief Justice John Marshall stated in his SCOTUS opinion early in the 19th century that all written contracts are legal and binding by law did the legality even come into play. Before that marriage was considered a sacred institution binding by the will of GOD.
Click to expand...

Yes it does apply to the context of marriage. It applies to any contracts that are regulated by laws. This would include marriage laws, driver's licenses, fishing licenses, business licenses, professional licenses, or any other type of contracts/licenses that is regulated in any way by laws the government puts forth.

Equal protection | LII / Legal Information Institute

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fourteenth Amendment - lawbrain.com
 
CriticalThought said:
Is marriage a civil right that is protected by the Constitution
Click to expand...
The Constitution does not list marriage as a right. "Right" is one of the most abused words in the US these days.

or is it a privilege that can be decided by a vote from the people?
Click to expand...
It's not that either. It's a domestic contract between two people, which is subject to local legislation.
 
Surtr said:
The Constitution does not list marriage as a right. "Right" is one of the most abused words in the US these days.

It's not that either. It's a domestic contract between two people, which is subject to local legislation.
Click to expand...

The "Amendments" to the Constitution are part of the Constitution. The 14th Amendment says that state laws must not treat people unequally under the law. This has always been interpreted to mean that any laws or legal restrictions the government, state governments in particular, put into place must not treat people differently based on race, religion, gender, and many, many other things unless the state can show why treating people unequally reasonably furthers a legitimate state interest.

Here is an easy test for this. What part of the Constitution, specifically, prevents a state from telling a woman that she could not have a fishing license or a man that he could not have a nursing license? What specific part of the Constitution prevents a state from telling people with blue eyes or orange hair that they cannot own a drivers' license? Neither a fishing license nor a nursing license (professional license of any kind really) or a driver's license are specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
 
Marriage itself may indeed be a civil "right", but the benefits aren't.
 
clownboy said:
Marriage itself may indeed be a civil "right", but the benefits aren't.
Click to expand...

Having equal access to the benefits in similar situations (meaning legal situations) is a civil right.
 
roguenuke said:
Having equal access to the benefits in similar situations (meaning legal situations) is a civil right.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. There are a multitude of cases where the government offers benefits to one class alone, or where benefits are different depending upon your circumstances.
 
clownboy said:
No, it's not. There are a multitude of cases where the government offers benefits to one class alone, or where benefits are different depending upon your circumstances.
Click to expand...

The requirement is that the situations be similar and the government then has to show that not giving the benefits to a group/person similarly situated furthers a state interest.

For example, the government can tell 14 year olds that they cannot get a driver's license because it can be shown that at 14, people lack certain skills and judgement to operate a car safely on the road. However, the government could not tell people with black hair or who have buzz cut hair that they cannot have a driver's license without showing how those factors legitimately affect their ability to do everything required legally by the license.
 
Don't some states offer more in the way of marriage benefits than others?
 
Surtr said:
The Constitution does not list marriage as a right. "Right" is one of the most abused words in the US these days.


It's not that either. It's a domestic contract between two people, which is subject to local legislation.
Click to expand...

And once again...

CriticalThought said:
Really? Seriously? The whole "Where does it say ____ in the Constitution?" is one of the most nonsensical political arguments that pops up on this forum. Are you really that much of an originalist that if it isn't stated explicitly in the Constitution itself, then it can't be a Constitutional right? The Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution states, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Can you really not see how that might apply to marriage? Marriage is a law.
Click to expand...

And again since marriage is NOT a "domestic contract" but a LEGAL contract...

CriticalThought said:
A legal contract is a product of LAW! It literally has the word LEGAL in it! What on earth do you think LEGAL means?



You fundamentally do not understand marriage law.

Rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Tell me how you can acquire those legal benefits, rights, and privileges through a "business arrangement"?

And I'm not sure why you would argue that the 14th amendment does not apply to marriage when SCOTUS has already applied it to marriage to overturn interracial marriage bans in Loving vs. Virginia. That argument makes absolutely no sense.
Click to expand...
 
clownboy said:
Don't some states offer more in the way of marriage benefits than others?
Click to expand...

Which would have what to do with this argument? Most of the benefits of marriage are federal, not state level benefits. There are about 300 state benefits to marriage, most of which are universal no matter which state you are in. There are around 1100 federal benefits.

There are a few that are different, like whether marriage assets are community property or not. But I don't see how any of the benefits that are different would have anything to do with this discussion. If the states have to allow same sex marriage the same as they were forced to allow interracial marriage, then it would simply work the same way for same sex couples as it does opposite sex couples of any racial combination. They are still all people and the laws cannot treat the genders differently in marriage, even on a state level. If they did/do, then they need to be challenged anyway, since they are discriminating on gender and there would be no reason to do so.
 
CriticalThought said:
Is marriage a civil right that is protected by the Constitution or is it a privilege that can be decided by a vote from the people?
Click to expand...


All the things that go in to making a marriage - living together, loving together, raising a family... these may be considered Civil Rights, in that (unless in case of a few, specified exceptions) no one has the right to interfere with you doing so.

Receipt of a marriage license from the State, however, is different. Because the State (on behalf of the populace) is actively issuing the license, it must define the conditions upon which receipt is dependent. Here the people have every right to limit the positive actions of the State in the same way in which they do not have the right to limit the positive actions of individuals in the actions listed above. Having the state do something for you in receipt of a marriage (or drivers, or concealed carry) license is not a Civil Right.
 
cpwill said:
All the things that go in to making a marriage - living together, loving together, raising a family... these may be considered Civil Rights, in that (unless in case of a few, specified exceptions) no one has the right to interfere with you doing so.

Receipt of a marriage license from the State, however, is different. Because the State (on behalf of the populace) is actively issuing the license, it must define the conditions upon which receipt is dependent. Here the people have every right to limit the positive actions of the State in the same way in which they do not have the right to limit the positive actions of individuals in the actions listed above. Having the state do something for you in receipt of a marriage (or drivers, or concealed carry) license is not a Civil Right.
Click to expand...

A civil license is still subject to Constitutional law. As per the 14th amendment, people are entitled to equal protection under the law. In the past many states defined the conditions of marriage as to be only between people of the same race and the Supreme Court struck down those conditions and cited marriage as a "fundamental right". I see little reason why the arguments for race cannot be extended to sex. Is it any more rational for the state to argue that two people of the same sex should be denied a marriage license than it is for the state to argue that a marriage license should be restricted to two people of the same race?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom