Marriage isn't a human right

The State's interest in your marriage means that if you break the marital contract, they don't want to pay for raising your offspring..

Its pretty basic stuff and covered in the legal theory.

 

And what's that half to do with what I said? Marriage as a legal institution only exists because the state created it, and it's not necessary to be 'legally married' for a person to have sex, or enter a relationship, therefore it's not a right

 

I agree its not a right...

 

Not true, marriage exists as a cultural institution, not a 'religion institution' - it exists for example in Buddhists cultures, but Buddhists don't believe they 'speak to God', that I know of

- - - Updated - - -

Slavery is a violation of human rights, because it causes aggressive and life-threatening harm to individuals - not being able to get a contract from a courthouse that has the word "married" on it does not, so it's not a human right

 

Let me just point out that you do not need marriage, legal or otherwise, to manage parental rights and obligations. Plenty of people have kids without marrying.

 

Did you actually READ my post?

 

Agreed, although it is a civil right when the state gets involved -- which it does in most countries.

 

Your talking about what is vs. what should be, that would be very voluminous and lengthy, the Supreme Court ruled the income tax was illegal in the late 1800s but changed "interpretation" a few decades later, Roe vs. Wade would've been considered a joke to bring up decades earlier...inter-racial marriage was a State issue but was overridden eventually by "higher" laws, we can say and talk about how the Feds trump over this State law or that and when you look at the mechanisms involved, it's not kosher at all or consistent with "interpretations" of the past.....

Anyone whose in some comfort bubble that Govt is out for our interests and would never pass laws illegal to our Charter needs to just look at NDAA, NSA spying on us w/o warrants and the Patriot Act--to name just a few.

 

I have to agree to disagree, under our Constitutional form of government with our doctrine of only delegating social Powers. In other words, if it is not enumerated, it doesn't exist under any form of Socialism, but not necessarily our form of Capitalism.

 

Of what exactly? Your citation not in the Constitution...

 

While I agree with you that marriage is not a right, as anything that needs a "license" is be definition a privilege, there is no "right to life" as you describe either. There is a right not to be killed, but if there was a "right to life" one who needed a heart transplant could simply go to a government facility (which by definition are to do nothing BUT guarantee individual rights) and get a heart. It would be up to the government to provide that heart no matter what so as not to violate one's rights!

Similarly there is no right to food, or healthcare, etc. All those one must provide for themselves. There is a right to keep such things so one may live... HHHmmmm, wonder if the poor who are not poor enough for subsidies (working poor) will have to make a choice to eat, or pay healthcare premiums that Democrat MANDATE…?

 

So then you're not talking about state-recognized marriage then, right? If so, I a agree with you, but it seems almost a moot point since the entirety of the political battles on marriage are entirely about state recognition.

But the op opens up for an interesting discussion. Its too bad that almost every respondent sees it as a veiled attack on gay marriage rights (which it probably is), and so categorically responds that the op is wrong. Its an unfortunate, because if the op is wrong, and marriage is actually a fundamental right, then we sincerely need to address the legality of polygamy, for which we issue fines up to $10,000 and 5 years imprisonment.

 

Yea, but the Tenth Amendment refutes everything you just wrote! People have the right o be left alone, or say "NO!" to government mandates that usurp their liberty, or the power to say "NO!"

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.​

 

The Supreme Court must rule "under" the Constitution, or they may not change it's meaning. Everything violates Article 1, Section 8 and the amendments including the Tenth amendment if it is not specifically listed in the Constitution...

 

And still Loving vs. Virginia is ignored.

 

By your definition of ""human right" neither are many other things that we take for granted in this country...the ability to move around freely, to choose where to work or live and who to associate with. The right to vote. Are you saying that because these things are not necessities of life...that they are not required for survival...that they can be taken away or denied because there is something about a person, or a group , that others disapprove of?

 

What part of we signed a treaty declaring marriage is a fundamental right of people this makes it 100% on par with the US Constitution and therefore overrides the 10th Amendment.

And what does a license have to do with marriage its largely a social act one can get married under a religion or do so and sign agreements and be married just can't get government consideration as this being a marriage. In fact Common Law Marriage just requires you shack up and live like your married and your married at some point if you meet state legal considerations.

Again we signed treaties that cover human rights and this is one of them covered. That is how Treaty Law in our government functions we sign a treaty its part of the highest law of the land.

 

Sorry for the ...SNIP... but I could not waste time with reading the rest of your post. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land which means NOTHING can overrule the Constitution. Treaties are only "constitutional" and therefore legal if they ADHERE to the constitution... Marriage is not in the Constitution. Equal protection under the law IS in the Constitution. "marriage" has been historically defined as being between a man and a woman, not a "white" man and a "white" woman, or between a "black" man and a "black" woman. States could have outlawed "marriage" if they wanted to since THEY control the institution, but if they allow marriage it has to be as historically defined...

 

True. But marriage is a contract. Without the state to enforce it, it would be much less useful.

It's not quite the same. Drivers' licenses are a restriction imposed by the state. Marriage lends the power of the state to a private contract.

False. Legal marriage is fundamentally a contract. Marriage benefits (favorable tax treatment, survivor benefits, etc.) are quite separate from that contract.

No. The legal recognition -- and definition -- of the relationship is exactly the point.

 

Bingo. There was never any plausible justification for outlawing polygamy, any more than for outlawing marijuana. Both prohibitions directly contradict the Declaration of Independence. The crazy part is, polygamy was outlawed on religious pretexts, but nowhere in the Bible is polygamy prohibited.

 

How did you reach your conclusion that States may deny and disparage a natural right without any specific enumeration delegating any such social power.

 

Isn't that the way it works?

 

Marriage is not provided by the State; the State merely plays shell games with Statism and that form of socialism.

Simply recording a marriage with the public sector should qualify for full faith and credit purposes since that private act is thereby commuted to a public act.

 

The constitution gives the supreme court the right to interpret the constitution and rulings they make are seen as being part of the constitution. That is one of their jobs.

For example, if they ruled that because the 2nd amendment says that membership in a regulated militia is the reason for gun rights, that you had to be a member of one to own a gun, then that would then be a constitutional requirement for gun ownership. The only thing that would change it is an amendment.

They ruled that marriage is a right, and so it is legally a right, and is viewed as being part of the constitution.

 

The Supreme Court is a tool, I'd love to abolish it and I think the Fathers would abolish it today if they knew what became of it.

It's now the Court of Public Opinions, rather than an actual constitutional interpretation.