• 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 there an unwritten right to marriage?

Is there an unwritten right to marriage (in the US at least)?

  • Total voters
    18
roguenuke

roguenuke

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
66,693
Reaction score
29,994
Location
Rolesville, NC
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Is it reasonable at all that a state in the US could simply get rid of marriage in that state? I am talking completely refuse to recognize any marriages at all, opposite sex or same sex, also refusing to recognize spouse as a legal family relationship. Could any state legitimately just stop issuing marriage licenses of any kind, remove all recognition of legal spouses from laws and only recognize blood relationships (and adopted children)?

From my viewpoint, I don't think this could logically be done without serious repercussions that would easily allow for people to take such a thing to court. I believe it would be like a state banning driver licenses and, in so doing, essentially banning anyone to drive private vehicles (at least) on public roads. Because just like marriage licenses, there really is no right written anywhere for people to drive, but banning that ability would cause an undue burden on major portions of the population, just as banning marriage in any part of the US would as well. There simply must be some form of legal recognition for legal spouse as being a person's legal family as long as we, as a society recognizes any legal relations as more important legally within a person's life to any other non-legal relationships. And by calling the process of getting to there "marriage", then that means that there simply is a "right to marriage". It would be set as part of the right of people to be able to choose their relationships and how close those relationships are legally tied to that person.

Now, I realize that the likelihood of marriage going away in the US anytime in the next century is probably extremely small, just due to the massive support marriage honestly does have as an institution within our society and in fact our lives as a species. I also realize that there are small groups of people who think marriage should be done away with (although I strongly believe that the real issue for them is what they perceive as "goodies"/"bennies" that marriage grants people rather than doing away with what marriage truly does for us, which would be granting that legal relationship claim of "spouse" for two people toward each other, just as adoption grants a legal relationship claim over a child as "parent" and a legal claim to the child to their adopted parents).

So what do you think? Does the fact that legal marriage being banned by a state would create an extreme undue hardship on people when it comes to their personal relationships mean that marriage would in fact be a right, just not one specified? Or is there simply no real right to have anyone claimed as family legally?
 
It is founded in the idea of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The greater issue before the courts really is how you can legitimately grant it to one group at the exclusion of others and still comply with equal protection rights.
 
I would say there is because our culture supports that right. It's something I am willing to bet people would fight to retain the right for.
 
There never has been a "right" to marriage, and the so-called "bennies" of marriage already vary from state to state and have changed over the years. It one of those questions that boils down to what if the impossible were to happen.
 
I am assume it is not written but is supported through common law.
 
There's no right to marriage, unwritten or otherwise. There are plenty of people who are legally unable to get married, even outside of the gay marriage issue. However, there is a quite clearly written right of equality and that's what's being denied to gays right now.
 
roguenuke said:
Is it reasonable at all that a state in the US could simply get rid of marriage in that state? I am talking completely refuse to recognize any marriages at all, opposite sex or same sex, also refusing to recognize spouse as a legal family relationship. Could any state legitimately just stop issuing marriage licenses of any kind, remove all recognition of legal spouses from laws and only recognize blood relationships (and adopted children)?

From my viewpoint, I don't think this could logically be done without serious repercussions that would easily allow for people to take such a thing to court. I believe it would be like a state banning driver licenses and, in so doing, essentially banning anyone to drive private vehicles (at least) on public roads. Because just like marriage licenses, there really is no right written anywhere for people to drive, but banning that ability would cause an undue burden on major portions of the population, just as banning marriage in any part of the US would as well. There simply must be some form of legal recognition for legal spouse as being a person's legal family as long as we, as a society recognizes any legal relations as more important legally within a person's life to any other non-legal relationships. And by calling the process of getting to there "marriage", then that means that there simply is a "right to marriage". It would be set as part of the right of people to be able to choose their relationships and how close those relationships are legally tied to that person.

Now, I realize that the likelihood of marriage going away in the US anytime in the next century is probably extremely small, just due to the massive support marriage honestly does have as an institution within our society and in fact our lives as a species. I also realize that there are small groups of people who think marriage should be done away with (although I strongly believe that the real issue for them is what they perceive as "goodies"/"bennies" that marriage grants people rather than doing away with what marriage truly does for us, which would be granting that legal relationship claim of "spouse" for two people toward each other, just as adoption grants a legal relationship claim over a child as "parent" and a legal claim to the child to their adopted parents).

So what do you think? Does the fact that legal marriage being banned by a state would create an extreme undue hardship on people when it comes to their personal relationships mean that marriage would in fact be a right, just not one specified? Or is there simply no real right to have anyone claimed as family legally?
Click to expand...

There is a absolute right to marriage. As to the state sanctioning it is another thing entirely. The right is based on two fundamental rights, that of association and contract.
 
clownboy said:
There never has been a "right" to marriage, and the so-called "bennies" of marriage already vary from state to state and have changed over the years. It one of those questions that boils down to what if the impossible were to happen.
Click to expand...

Which I covered in my OP. The entire point is that the main thing marriage does is make two people legal family, and specifically each other's closest legal relative, holding a higher place in law than either parents or children of those two people in hierarchy (unless other contracts are written to override that place). That is the thing that marriage does for everyone and that cannot be replaced by other contracts. The "bennies" are completely pointless when it comes to individual states, since the majority of bennies are federal and I specifically addressed just a state banning it, not a federal ban on recognition for a reason. States issue marriage licenses, not the federal government, however the federal government relies much more on those state recognized relationships than the states do.
 
Cephus said:
There's no right to marriage, unwritten or otherwise. There are plenty of people who are legally unable to get married, even outside of the gay marriage issue. However, there is a quite clearly written right of equality and that's what's being denied to gays right now.
Click to expand...

Despite popular belief, rights have limits. I have a right to free speech, but that doesn't mean I have a right to speak anywhere I want about whatever I want and expect no repercussions from what I say, even some legal ones depending on what exactly I say. I have a right to own firearms, but that is very limited (even if I believe with others that it is too limited in many places).

Even written rights within our Constitution have limits based on other laws and how those restrictions benefit society or not.
 
If there was an unwritten right, how would you know?
 
disneydude said:
It is founded in the idea of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The greater issue before the courts reallhow you can legitimately grant it to one group at the exclusion of others and still comply with equal protection rights.
Click to expand...





hmmmm, a very interesting viewpoint that I have not well explored.

Thinking is good

Thom Paine
 
No. Rights are negative. You do not have a positive right to have the state issue you a piece of paper.

That being said - that is how rights interplay with the marriage license, certificate, whathaveyou. When it comes to living together, loving together, introducing each other as your spouse, having a ceremony, etc; that you have full rights to. Because rights are negative.
 
PirateMk1 said:
There is a absolute right to marriage. As to the state sanctioning it is another thing entirely. The right is based on two fundamental rights, that of association and contract.
Click to expand...

Without state sanctioning or rather recognition of the marriages though, then there really would be no right to it because the state handles the real thing that is protected with that recognition, the spouses from each other and/or from other legally recognized family members when there is a dispute.

The government recognizes family of any individual within an hierarchy, with spouse being at the highest point of that hierarchy (barring any other contracts that would say otherwise, and many times those require spouse agreement to that reduced position). It places children usually next within that hierarchy (with some exceptions based on age and/or situation), followed by parents and then siblings (again with no other agreements to the contrary and with some exceptions based on issue), and then would be further out relations, aunts, uncles, cousins, inlaws, grandparents, nieces, nephews, and further out.
 
sawdust said:
If there was an unwritten right, how would you know?
Click to expand...

Generally based on how the public views marriage for the most part and past cases, particularly within the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS has in fact stated a right to marriage exists within several cases of the past. But since a state has not actually banned marriage/spousal recognition (which is truly what is in contention I suppose, but we only get spousal recognition through marriage), then the SCOTUS has never been faced with that particular question so has not had to address it specifically.
 
cpwill said:
No. Rights are negative. You do not have a positive right to have the state issue you a piece of paper.

That being said - that is how rights interplay with the marriage license, certificate, whathaveyou. When it comes to living together, loving together, introducing each other as your spouse, having a ceremony, etc; that you have full rights to. Because rights are negative.
Click to expand...

Rights are both positive and negative. You have a right to have a person of your choosing be legally recognized as your closest relation. Without marriage or legal recognition of some kind for a spouse, then that would only allow for those blood related to you (or adopted into your blood family) to be considered as such.
 
Marriage is a natural right and purely private Act, that is recognized by a State for full faith and credit purposes.
 
For a large chunk of the population it is an assumed right upon adulthood. For many others, however, people of homosexual or bisexual orientation or individuals with certain sorts of disabilities, you are barred from admission without a second thought.
 
roguenuke said:
Generally based on how the public views marriage for the most part and past cases, particularly within the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS has in fact stated a right to marriage exists within several cases of the past. But since a state has not actually banned marriage/spousal recognition (which is truly what is in contention I suppose, but we only get spousal recognition through marriage), then the SCOTUS has never been faced with that particular question so has not had to address it specifically.
Click to expand...

So it was written.
 
Fiddytree said:
For a large chunk of the population it is an assumed right. For many others, however, people of homosexual or bisexual orientation or individuals with certain sorts of disabilities, you are barred from admission without a second thought.
Click to expand...

Which is simply saying that they are being denied legitimate recognition of the actual right to marriage due to unsubstantiated beliefs that this limitation is somehow a benefit to society. It is little different than segregation in the past denying a legitimate, even written right to equal protection based on unsupportable beliefs that such limitations somehow benefited society. Unfortunately, due to how our system is designed, laws that place restrictions upon any of our rights must be challenged in some way first before they can be shown to be violating rights.
 
sawdust said:
So it was written.
Click to expand...

Only as a part of other rulings, where marriage was being recognized in at least a form just being restricted to some people. It has not specifically been covered as how I described it.
 
The OP's scenario wouldn't happen because there's a licence fee for marriage. Taxes and fees never go away.;)
 
roguenuke said:
Only as a part of other rulings, where marriage was being recognized in at least a form just being restricted to some people. It has not specifically been covered as how I described it.
Click to expand...

But we were asked about unwritten rights.
 
danielpalos said:
It isn't unwritten; it is a natural right recognized in State Constitutions.
Click to expand...

I quit. The question was, is there an unwritten right, and I asked if it was unwritten how would we know. I see humor in these kind of things but I guess I'm alone in that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom