The right to (gay) marry?

[Slopeshoulder]

In a thread on another topic, Dianaiad wrote:

here's the thing: Gays do not have the right to marry. Rights such as that are assigned by the government, and the government hasn't assigned that right to gays, yet...not completely.

Yet, Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independance that we are endowed with inalienable rights by our creator (God), including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. He wrote explicitly that certain fundamental human rights, and the freedom to engage in behaviors that express these rights, come NOT from government, but from God (or the human condition or nature for you atheists). It comes with breathing, not by law.

So, assuming that marriage is an expression of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, do we not have these rights inherently, and not as granted by government? Does Dianaiad not have it completely reversed and wrong? Is it not a travesty, like slavery and jim crow and interracial marriage before it, that legal opposition to specifically gay marriage exists in the first place? Is the freedom for it not baked into our national philosophy? What the hell happened?

[Haven]

I am not religious and I lack belief in god(s), however, I definitely believe all human beings have the inalienable right to marry, regardless of their sexual orientation. This right, like the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, is fundamental, and comes from no authority structure such as god(s) or governments. Instead, such fundamental rights are intrinsic to humanity, they are part of what define us as human beings.

Yes, I strongly believe that gay marriage bans are equivalent to slavery, female disenfranchisement, and Jim Crow laws, among other discriminatory practices. Banning gay marriage is a violation of both human and civil rights, and it needs to stop.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

So, assuming that marriage is an expression of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, do we not have these rights inherently, and not as granted by government?

I think the biggest problem here is the inclusion of "...by their Creator..." and the inference this "Creator" is the Christian one. So, the Christian could feel perfectly not at odds with thinking what this "Creator", through the Christian Bible says is a "no go", then the Christian would be within their "rights" to restrict certain freedoms.

Does Dianaiad not have it completely reversed and wrong?

All who seek to prevent others from doing, while doing themselves, are wrong.

Is it not a travesty, like slavery and jim crow and interracial marriage before it, that legal opposition to specifically gay marriage exists in the first place?

Travesty.

Is the freedom for it not baked into our national philosophy?

Exactly.

What the hell happened?

Religion.

[dianaiad]

In a thread on another topic, Dianaiad wrote:

here's the thing: Gays do not have the right to marry. Rights such as that are assigned by the government, and the government hasn't assigned that right to gays, yet...not completely.

Yet, Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independance that we are endowed with inalienable rights by our creator (God), including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I sure don't see 'the right to marry' anywhere in there. As well, the rights that the government gives to married couples have varied widely in the years since then; they get tweaked frequently, AMOF....just look at the tax code, if you don't believe me on that one.

He wrote explicitly that certain fundamental human rights, and the freedom to engage in behaviors that express these rights, come NOT from government, but from God (or the human condition or nature for you atheists). It comes with breathing, not by law.

'Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..."

Don't see any guarantee of GETTING happiness, just that one can go after it.

The real, political facts are very clear. Gays do not have the right to marry. If they did, they would be getting married. The government would be recognizing those marriages. It isn't, so they don't have it.

They may. When the government decides that they do, THEN they will. It's a legal notion, not a moral one, Slopeshoulder. Can anybody argue that before the emancipation proclamation, that many Americans had the right to own people?

Now they don't. Don't kid yourself; we may rhetorically proclaim rights, but it is the government that assigns them.

So, assuming that marriage is an expression of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,

Why assume that? Marriage, inasfar as the GOVERNMENT is concerned, consists only of a certain group of contractual rights assigned to (mostly) heterosexual partners for the purpose of living together, raising a possible family, and enjoying certain benefits not available to those who don't enter into such contracts. It's business. The 'pursuit of happiness' part is something that the government cannot provide or enforce.

Shoot, just ask one of the old 'free love' folks, who were constantly on about how they 'didn't need a piece of paper to prove their love..."

Oh, and BTW, it is that unenforceable bit that causes problems with those religions that do not recognize gay marriages. I've never met a single anti-gay marriage type who had any problems with the government assigning the same legal rights to gay couples as can be assigned to heterosexual ones. I really haven't.

The objection comes with the interference of government with religious beliefs...attempting to enforce the unenforceable.

do we not have these rights inherently, and not as granted by government?

Obviously not. One may argue that they SHOULD have, but that they already DO?

Not so much.

.....................oh, and yes, while I do agree that one may argue that they should have, that doesn't mean I agree with the argument.

Does Dianaiad not have it completely reversed and wrong? Is it not a travesty, like slavery and jim crow and interracial marriage before it, that legal opposition to specifically gay marriage exists in the first place? Is the freedom for it not baked into our national philosophy? What the hell happened?

Government happened. Catch up.

[Autodidact]

Well, I guess, using dianaid's terminology, that gay people have the right to marry in a few states, and not in others. It kind of goes without saying, and doesn't add anything to the discussion, but that is the current state of the law.

However, you might also say that they have the right in some other states, it just hasn't been recognized or adjudicated yet. The reason I say that is that in those states where the issue has been litigated, the courts found such a right in the state's constitution, which is a law that already exists. So I guess in all those states that don't have constitutional amendments prohibiting it, there may (or may not) already be such a right, we just don't know it yet.

The country as a whole may, or may not, be in the same situation. It remains to be seen.

[micatala]

In a thread on another topic, Dianaiad wrote:

here's the thing: Gays do not have the right to marry. Rights such as that are assigned by the government, and the government hasn't assigned that right to gays, yet...not completely.

Yet, Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independance that we are endowed with inalienable rights by our creator (God), including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I sure don't see 'the right to marry' anywhere in there. As well, the rights that the government gives to married couples have varied widely in the years since then; they get tweaked frequently, AMOF....just look at the tax code, if you don't believe me on that one.

I would agree. There is nothing specifically about marriage either in the Declaration, or in the Constitution for that matter. Yes, what has been allowable as far as marriage has also changed a lot. Interracial couples in something like 17 states could not marry until the 1960's.

He wrote explicitly that certain fundamental human rights, and the freedom to engage in behaviors that express these rights, come NOT from government, but from God (or the human condition or nature for you atheists). It comes with breathing, not by law.

'Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..."

Don't see any guarantee of GETTING happiness, just that one can go after it.

Agreed. That's why I support gay marriage. Why can't they be as miserable as the rest of us? (Just kidding, and don't tell my wife I said that).


Seriously, though, I think pursuing happiness needs to include the right to marry. That is not in the constitution, but it IS in numerous SCOTUS decisions. Felons have the right to pursue happiness by getting married, even if they can't get out of prison to actually, uhhh, experience certain parts of that happiness.

The real, political facts are very clear. Gays do not have the right to marry. If they did, they would be getting married. The government would be recognizing those marriages. It isn't, so they don't have it.

This does describe the legal reality. My point would be that people have certain rights even if they aren't recognized by the government. In my view, blacks most certainly did have a "right" not to be slaves, even though the law disagreed for decades. That is what it means to be "inalienable." After all, the colonists felt their inalienable rights were being violated even before there was a constitution. That was why they SAID the rights they were claiming were inalienable.

They may. When the government decides that they do, THEN they will. It's a legal notion, not a moral one, Slopeshoulder. Can anybody argue that before the emancipation proclamation, that many Americans had the right to own people?

This just proves my point. The slaveowners did not have a "right" to own people, but they did anyway, and legally too.

Now they don't. Don't kid yourself; we may rhetorically proclaim rights, but it is the government that assigns them.

Well, I would agree the government either does or does not recognize certain rights, but I would still call them rights just the same. Call it a semantic difference if you want. If there was no moral basis for claiming rights, then the civil rights movement never would have succeeded. It was the moral foundation that eventually persuaded the government to act justly.

So, assuming that marriage is an expression of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,

Why assume that? Marriage, inasfar as the GOVERNMENT is concerned, consists only of a certain group of contractual rights assigned to (mostly) heterosexual partners for the purpose of living together, raising a possible family, and enjoying certain benefits not available to those who don't enter into such contracts. It's business. The 'pursuit of happiness' part is something that the government cannot provide or enforce.

Shoot, just ask one of the old 'free love' folks, who were constantly on about how they 'didn't need a piece of paper to prove their love..."

I agree to a point. Marriage is a legally recognized institution. The government cannot provide for happiness. However, it CAN allow people to pursue happiness by not preventing their pursuit. Getting married is considered by most people probably one of the principle means of pursuing happiness. Yes, some pursue happiness (and perhaps achieve it) without marriage. That is their choice. Why prevent others from a different choice, the choice to be married, just because not everyone thinks of marriage as part of their pursuit of happiness?

Oh, and BTW, it is that unenforceable bit that causes problems with those religions that do not recognize gay marriages. I've never met a single anti-gay marriage type who had any problems with the government assigning the same legal rights to gay couples as can be assigned to heterosexual ones. I really haven't.

This may be true, but your sample is highly, highly unrepresentative then. In my state, 53% of the voters in a statewide election not only voted to ban gay marriage, but to also ban anything that even approached marriage, including any kind of legally recognized domestic partnerships.

If you come to my state, half the adults you meet, whether they say so or not, will be an anti-gay marriage type who absolutely has problems with assigning the same legal rights to gays. That's a mathematical fact.

[99percentatheism]

I am not religious and I lack belief in god(s), however, I definitely believe all human beings have the inalienable right to marry, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Why? How? Is everything that people want justified simply by how the individual feels? There are lots of things that couples do that are rather inappropriate to force others to celebrate and support.

This right, like the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, is fundamental, and comes from no authority structure such as god(s) or governments. Instead, such fundamental rights are intrinsic to humanity, they are part of what define us as human beings.

Yeeaauuuhhh, I don't think naturalism holds out much encouragement of same gender couplings. All homosexuality in lower animals is aberrant behavior.

Yes, I strongly believe that gay marriage bans are equivalent to slavery, female disenfranchisement, and Jim Crow laws, among other discriminatory practices. Banning gay marriage is a violation of both human and civil rights, and it needs to stop.

Redefining an African as a non human is far different than opposing homosexual couplings.

And the way you are righting your declaration, religions that abhor homosexuality MUST be forced to support and celebrate it.

That's a VERY slippery slope.

[dianaiad]

In a thread on another topic, Dianaiad wrote:

here's the thing: Gays do not have the right to marry. Rights such as that are assigned by the government, and the government hasn't assigned that right to gays, yet...not completely.

Yet, Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independance that we are endowed with inalienable rights by our creator (God), including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I sure don't see 'the right to marry' anywhere in there. As well, the rights that the government gives to married couples have varied widely in the years since then; they get tweaked frequently, AMOF....just look at the tax code, if you don't believe me on that one.

I would agree. There is nothing specifically about marriage either in the Declaration, or in the Constitution for that matter. Yes, what has been allowable as far as marriage has also changed a lot. Interracial couples in something like 17 states could not marry until the 1960's.

He wrote explicitly that certain fundamental human rights, and the freedom to engage in behaviors that express these rights, come NOT from government, but from God (or the human condition or nature for you atheists). It comes with breathing, not by law.

'Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..."

Don't see any guarantee of GETTING happiness, just that one can go after it.

Agreed. That's why I support gay marriage. Why can't they be as miserable as the rest of us? (Just kidding, and don't tell my wife I said that).


Seriously, though, I think pursuing happiness needs to include the right to marry. That is not in the constitution, but it IS in numerous SCOTUS decisions. Felons have the right to pursue happiness by getting married, even if they can't get out of prison to actually, uhhh, experience certain parts of that happiness.

But they can't marry more than one spouse at a time, they can't marry their sisters/brothers/mothers/fathers/aunts/uncles...and most of the time, first cousins are problematical, as well. You can't get married just to get a green card...the state looks upon that as fraud.

The State has always had restrictions upon who may, and may not, marry.

.....because the state has a vested interest in the results of those unions: the legal rights and responsibilities, those things which the state can enforce and must deal with if things go sideways, all the property rights, basically, as well as the raising of the kids involved.

It may be that homosexual marriage will be recognized, eventually, as a right. Until that happens, they simply don't have that right, any more than I have the right to marry more than one man at a time.

It's a sad thing, I suppose...but it's also a true thing. "Rights" are things that are accorded to individuals by the culture and laws in which they live. We can talk about the rights we SHOULD have, and that it would be FAIR to have, and PROPER to have....but the only rights we actually DO have are those that our fellow citizens allow us to have.

...........and for which we are willing to fight.

[micatala]

In a thread on another topic, Dianaiad wrote:

here's the thing: Gays do not have the right to marry. Rights such as that are assigned by the government, and the government hasn't assigned that right to gays, yet...not completely.

Yet, Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independance that we are endowed with inalienable rights by our creator (God), including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I sure don't see 'the right to marry' anywhere in there. As well, the rights that the government gives to married couples have varied widely in the years since then; they get tweaked frequently, AMOF....just look at the tax code, if you don't believe me on that one.

I would agree. There is nothing specifically about marriage either in the Declaration, or in the Constitution for that matter. Yes, what has been allowable as far as marriage has also changed a lot. Interracial couples in something like 17 states could not marry until the 1960's.

He wrote explicitly that certain fundamental human rights, and the freedom to engage in behaviors that express these rights, come NOT from government, but from God (or the human condition or nature for you atheists). It comes with breathing, not by law.

'Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..."

Don't see any guarantee of GETTING happiness, just that one can go after it.

Agreed. That's why I support gay marriage. Why can't they be as miserable as the rest of us? (Just kidding, and don't tell my wife I said that).


Seriously, though, I think pursuing happiness needs to include the right to marry. That is not in the constitution, but it IS in numerous SCOTUS decisions. Felons have the right to pursue happiness by getting married, even if they can't get out of prison to actually, uhhh, experience certain parts of that happiness.

But they can't marry more than one spouse at a time, they can't marry their sisters/brothers/mothers/fathers/aunts/uncles...and most of the time, first cousins are problematical, as well. You can't get married just to get a green card...the state looks upon that as fraud.

The State has always had restrictions upon who may, and may not, marry.

Yes, the state has imposed restrictions. The issue is WHY they do so. In my view, they should have a legitimate, non-religious reason. One should also look at the effect of the restriction.

For polygamy, the banning of which I would consider the least justified of the examples you list, one reason would be the complexity of multi-party contracts. The effect of the ban does limit options, but does not prevent marriage, and allows a very large number of potential partners.

For family members, there are very legitimate health issues involved. Also, the effect of the ban is minimal as it only prevents marriage to a small number of people.

The green card issue is pretty self-explanatory.



I fail to see any such legitimate justifications for banning gay marriage. And, the effect is very severe. It prevents marriage to any and all individuals that the person would have any interest in marrying.

.....because the state has a vested interest in the results of those unions: the legal rights and responsibilities, those things which the state can enforce and must deal with if things go sideways, all the property rights, basically, as well as the raising of the kids involved.

I'm not following at all how this justifies banning gay marriage. How, with respect to any of these issues, would gay marriage be different than heterosexual marriage?

It may be that homosexual marriage will be recognized, eventually, as a right. Until that happens, they simply don't have that right, any more than I have the right to marry more than one man at a time.

Again, this depends on your definition of "right." As I said, I believe in "inalienable" rights, even when the government does not recognize those rights. However, we can leave that aside. Let's just say I think gays should have the right to marry, since there is really no good reason not to let them do so, and preventing it has a very negative effect on them.

[dianaiad]

Yes, the state has imposed restrictions. The issue is WHY they do so. In my view, they should have a legitimate, non-religious reason. One should also look at the effect of the restriction.

In terms of the contractual and real world effects that the government can enforce? I believe that you are correct. The problem is that 'marriage' DOES have a religious aspect to it; religious, or personal, or something....that goes beyond what the government can, or should, enforce. It is that aspect that has the anti-gay marriage folks up in arms; not about the contractual stuff, not really....at base it's about the religious aspect. They see....and quite accurately, too...that this is a case of the government interfering with freedom of religion.

For polygamy, the banning of which I would consider the least justified of the examples you list, one reason would be the complexity of multi-party contracts.

Multi-party contracts happen all the time; what's the difference, to the lawyers, whether they are talking about a bunch of spouses at once---or several ex-spouses, each of which have financial responsibilities and ties to each other?

The effect of the ban does limit options, but does not prevent marriage, and allows a very large number of potential partners.

So does the banning of gay marriage. The 'partner pool' is just as wide for homosexuals as it is for heterosexuals. Same group, even. The problem isn't the wide range of potential partners; it's the range of forbidden ones.

For family members, there are very legitimate health issues involved. Also, the effect of the ban is minimal as it only prevents marriage to a small number of people.

The green card issue is pretty self-explanatory.

Yes. I have no argument with you over the reasoning. The statement is still true, though: the government can, and DOES, regulate who can marry whom---which means that there is no 'right to marry,' as such, outside the willingness of the government to extend that right.

We DO seem to have that inalienable right to live together, even have sex...but rather like getting a driver's license, one must qualify for the contractual privileges that the government extends to married couples. If you don't qualify, there's no 'right.' That's not how 'rights' work, as far as I'm aware.

But the government cannot enforce, or define, that part of 'marriage' that doesn't directly relate to property rights...or tax rights, or inheritance rights...how is the government going to enforce the 'no nookie outside the marriage bed until one of you croaks" part? How is the GOVERNMENT going to enforce those promises made between spouses, in the eyes of God--or one's friends, or to each other?

The government should get out of the marriage business altogether, I think. Stick to contracts.

I fail to see any such legitimate justifications for banning gay marriage. And, the effect is very severe. It prevents marriage to any and all individuals that the person would have any interest in marrying.

And if one is only attracted to one's sister...how is that any different for him? He doesn't want to marry anybody else, either.

.....because the state has a vested interest in the results of those unions: the legal rights and responsibilities, those things which the state can enforce and must deal with if things go sideways, all the property rights, basically, as well as the raising of the kids involved.

I'm not following at all how this justifies banning gay marriage. How, with respect to any of these issues, would gay marriage be different than heterosexual marriage?

In THOSE ways? Not a bit. The point I"m making is that the government DOES regulate marriage in a way that it sees fit. There's no 'inalienable right' to marry. One must qualify for the privilege.

The problem, with the anti-gay folks (mostly...it's certainly MY problem) is that for us it's not about whether they get the government assigned privileges and responsibilities of marriage. For us its about that part that the government cannot enforce, assign, or even affect; the part that even gays understand is over and above those rights. The ability not only to call oneself "married,' but the ability to make everybody else acknowledge that it is marriage, in every sense of the word; contractual and SPIRITUAL.

A whole bunch of us can't do that, and what gays want the government to do is to MAKE us do that. To mess with our religious freedoms.

So...anti-gay activists fight back, hard. I don't think that many of us give two hoots whether gays have those legal rights. I don't....go for it, more power to 'em.

But I can see the future as clearly as I have seen the past; the lawsuits WILL happen. The Government WILL step in and require religions to change their behavior....and thus their doctrine....to accommodate the government notion of what marriage is, even though that part of marriage that is at issue is not the part that the government can do anything about.

It may be that homosexual marriage will be recognized, eventually, as a right. Until that happens, they simply don't have that right, any more than I have the right to marry more than one man at a time.

Again, this depends on your definition of "right." As I said, I believe in "inalienable" rights, even when the government does not recognize those rights. However, we can leave that aside. Let's just say I think gays should have the right to marry, since there is really no good reason not to let them do so, and preventing it has a very negative effect on them.

I believe that they should have the right to marry, too, believe it or not. My only objection is to the part where, as a result, I will be forced to acknowledge MORE than the legal rights that go with marriage, that I will be forced to acknowledge their marriages as marriages in the sight of God, upon pain of government sanctions.

You know, rather like the Catholic church is being forced to pay for, and provide, contraception and abortion to the women who work for the church?