It can't be an inalienable right because there ARE laws regarding when marriage can be proscribed. All or nothing if it's inalienable.
FURTHER--"inalienable" or "unalienable" means it cannot be disposed of...last I checked, marriages can be dissolved. So by DEFINITION, marriage cannot be an unalienable right.
What’s not to understand? Again, I don’t know why you married your husband, but I married mine because I wanted to share my life with him in good times and in bad. What we promised to each other on our wedding day was to love each other, cherish each other, honour and protect each other, share with each other in joy and sorrow and be faithful to each other as long as we both shall live. That is the purpose of my marriage. I would not have wanted to marry anybody else but the very person that I’m married to. There are better looking people, richer people, funnier people, more intelligent people, more fertile and healthy people, but I would not want to swap my husband for any of those. If we had not been allowed to marry each other we would have been very unhappy. So I think that if consenting adults want to marry each other, they should have the right to do so.
A charter that does not understand unalienable rights but only the rights granted by government is not a document of freedom but a document of tyranny. The only way that document works is if you enslave or steal from others.
That is the promise. If the promise is broken the marriage contract provides protection for all parties including the children. That is what a marriage contract is about.
Did you make that up? Cute. lol They're synonyms, dear, the exact same meaning and interchangeable. http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/unalienable.htm
I'm being a stickler about this claim that marriage is about "happiness." Is "happiness" ....bad times? Where is "happiness" in there? Certainly, but is your marriage about "happiness"? --not avoiding UNhappiness... Certainly entitled to that opinion, but what is marriage about? Those things you listed are more about creating a stable social structure than "happiness."
i don't see how it could be as recent as a marriage license is. IIRC it's an invention of the last century or so.
a person can't be married to themself. groups don't have rights, individuals have rights. even the right to free assocation (the tack you should have taken) isn't the right of the group to exist, but the right of it's members to be a part of it.
Well if I remember right our discussion started with the statement that the right to marry may fall under the pursuit of happiness which is named as an unalienable right under the US constitution. This right does not guarantee happiness but it guarantees the freedom to pursue it. If you think stable social structures make you happy, you ought to have the right to enter such a stable social construct. As I said: I would have been deeply unhappy had I not been allowed to marry my husband, but luckily I was able to pursue my happiness when I did. Again, I dont know about your marriage, but the fact that my husband is at my side certainly makes my bad times a bit happier. So yes, thankfully so far my pursuit of happiness has been mostly successful. Just out of interest: whats the purpose of your marriage? Reproduction and rearing children? Is this couple likely to reproduce and rear children? http://www.google.de/imgres?start=3...&tbnw=170&ndsp=24&ved=1t:429,r:32,s:300,i:100
Sadly marriages sometimes break up, be it by divorce or by the death of one of the partners. It’s good that the divorcees/the widow/widower are then protected by the law. I think everybody should have the right to acquire such protection if they so wish. Thankfully my country has introduced same sex marriage just in time for two women I know to tie the knot before one of them fell ill and died. Otherwise, after having shared 20 years of their life, the surviving partner would have been without any rights whatsoever and – on top of grieving - might even have been forced to give up the house they both had lived in for most of that time.
Swipe at myself. I'm a German married to an Englishmen. With the clichees associated with our respective nationalities' sense of humour you can imagine the kind of joke that's being cracked in our house.
It's when the war is constantly being mentioned. [video=youtube;yfl6Lu3xQW0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfl6Lu3xQW0[/video]
The purpose of marriage--specifically state recognized marriage--SHOULD be for social stability.Reproduction and child-rearing is part of that, but also rather boring stuff like estate management and inheritance. Those things are why a government has an interest in supporting the institution of marriage. Government has no business getting in the business of something so transient and unstable as EMOTION. Recently, however, a specific branch of my country's governance decided they have the right to decide matters of LOVE. I think that is a very dangerous thing. I don't think a sane government has any business attempting to regulate something so incredibly subjective as personal EMOTIONS.
Pursuit of happiness is one of the major things we are supposedly to protect. If having multiple wives, concubines and slave girls is pursuit of happiness, why stop it? Back in the old days of the Roman Republic, you didn't need a marriage license, and you didn't need a divorce. It the gal left you, and you didn't bring her back, she was divorced and you were not obligated in her regard thereafter. If she took kids with her, you were not obligated to support them. The marriage licenses were invented as both revenue raising and people control measures. Now a days, a guy marries a witch. She divorces him and forces him to pay her to raise the brats in her witchy ways. Are Americans stupid enough to consider this "pursuit of happiness"? Maybe they consider the "happiness" of the witch as a matter of supreme importance?
Those are not synonyms, as two or more people can enter into a contract without prior approval (license) from government. How do you figure that, exactly? If I raise cattle and you raise horses, do we not have an unalienable right to trade livestock? No one has an unalienable right to fire a gun or you could fire in a random direction with impunity if the bullet hit someone. You cannot because firing a gun is not an unalienable right. Right?
No it is not. Either spouse can sue the other for breach of the contract, but the state cannot sue either spouse for breach of that contract because neither has promised the state anything as part of that contract.
Nice comment, Felicity. Yes, I am a romantic. And, I figure that if a man loves Truth, Mercy, and Faith as First in his life, a gal should be happy to be his help meet in serving those essential elements of human happiness. Such a pity that America has not produced Men. No wonder the females have become witches. Why should a gal submit to, obey a please a guy who refuses to do the same to "nature's God"? The poor ladies have been ripped off for too long. So, the curse of the Law came upon the males in America: As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths. Isaiah 3:12 From Mokhtarnameh video serial
"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523 Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101 You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.
It most certainly is. You receive State benefits because of the contract with the State, you also are receiving a license from the State so the contract is with the State. In return you receive protection from the State with things like court ordered child support through the State.
