The Supreme Court has consistently regarded marriage as a right

[one...two...tree 2,762]

ZABLOCKI v. REDHAIL

434 U.S. 374 (1978)

The Court struck down a Wisconsin law that required persons under obligations to pay support for the children of previous relationships to obtain permission of a court to marry. The statute required such individuals to prove that they were in compliance with support orders and that marriage would not threaten the financial security of their previous offspring. The Court reasoned that marriage was "a fundamental right" triggering "rigorous scutiny" of Wisconsin's justifications under the Equal Protection Clause.

........

TURNER v. SAFLEY

482 U.S. 78 (1987)

The Court refused to apply strict scutiny to a Missouri prison regulation prohibiting inmates from marrying, absent a compelling reason. Instead, the Court found the regulation failed to meet even a lowered standard of "reasonableness" that it said it would apply in evaluating the constitutionality of prison regulations.

...........

LOVING v. VIRGINIA

The first state marriage law to be invalidated was Virginia's miscegenation law in Loving v Virginia (1967). Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, had been found guilty of violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages and ordered to leave the state. The Court found Virginia's law to violate the Equal Protection Clause because it invidiously classified on the basis of race, but it also indicated the law would violate the Due Process Clause as an undue interference with 'the fundamental freedom" of marriage.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Just because the SCTOUS gives an opinion that they feel something is a right, doesn't make it so.

It's not their job to determine rights, to make law, etc.

It's their job to uphold the constitution and decide if laws are constitutional or not.

Marriage is not within the grasps of the Federal Government in any way, shape, or form. It's always been a state contract.

A state today could stand up and say, "we are no longer going to have marriage in our state." and there's not a damn thing the Feds could do about it without creating a Federal Marriage Law.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Just because the SCTOUS gives an opinion that they feel something is a right, doesn't make it so.

It's not their job to determine rights, to make law, etc.

It's their job to uphold the constitution and decide if laws are constitutional or not.

Marriage is not within the grasps of the Federal Government in any way, shape, or form. It's always been a state contract.

A state today could stand up and say, "we are no longer going to have marriage in our state." and there's not a damn thing the Feds could do about it without creating a Federal Marriage Law.

You are hopeless. You like to think you are a Libertarian, but really you are a Statist who believes that governments alone have the authority to decide who can marry and to whom. You make a mockery of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[Aubrey 10]

A state today could stand up and say, "we are no longer going to have marriage in our state." and there's not a damn thing the Feds could do about it without creating a Federal Marriage Law.

It's not that simple. The equal protection clause would still be a valid point against a law like that, too. Marriage isn't just a religious function; it effects federal taxes, spousal privileges to inherit and make health decisions, and much more. Denying marriage to any particular group of people denies people of those privileges, and the court has regularly ruled that those are actually civil rights.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

You are hopeless. You like to think you are a Libertarian, but really you are a Statist who believes that governments alone have the authority to decide who can marry and to whom. You make a mockery of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Not at all. If people wish to make a contract between themselves and get it notorized, then they are free to do so.

However, asking the government to recognize a marriage is a completely different scenario.

You call me a statist, but a statist is one who wants the government to recognize their marriage. In all reality, government should have no role in marriage whatsoever, as the relationship between two people is frankly none of their damn business.

As I've said, Marriage is a contract in government. Nothing more and nothing less. If you create a will, you don't need the government to sign off on it first. If you write a contract to do work for someone, you don't need the government to sign off on it first. In marriage though, unfortunately you do. THAT is the problem that people do not realize.

I've said it before, if you want your best friend to be the one who makes your decisions for you, then they should be it. If you want them to be your benefactor, then they should beit, or anyone else who you deem worthy or trust to take that position. You shouldn't need a government to tell you that's ok. This is why all "marriages" in government should be civil unions/contracts and not considered a marriage. Any two individuals who want to take part with each other can.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

It's not that simple. The equal protection clause would still be a valid point against a law like that, too. Marriage isn't just a religious function; it effects federal taxes, spousal privileges to inherit and make health decisions, and much more. Denying marriage to any particular group of people denies people of those privileges, and the court has regularly ruled that those are actually civil rights.

You can grant those rights to whomever you want, but there will still be plenty of groups denied that ability. That is the problem with marriage as I mentioned in my response to Steve above. If you want your best friend's sister to make your health decisions in case of an emergency, she should be able to. The problem is "marriage" in government.

People are discriminated along the lines of taxes each and every day for various reasons.

Again though, this is a state issue, not a Federal Issue. Marriage has no place in the Federal Government at this time. Sure, there might be tax breaks (or soon to be again the tax penalty) for couples who file jointly, but that has nothing to do with the actual contract of marriage itself and who it applies or doesn't apply to.

You cannot just add "same-sex couples" into a catagory without adding any other pair of people who want the same rights in entering that contract together.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Not at all. If people wish to make a contract between themselves and get it notorized, then they are free to do so.

However, asking the government to recognize a marriage is a completely different scenario.

You call me a statist, but a statist is one who wants the government to recognize their marriage. In all reality, government should have no role in marriage whatsoever, as the relationship between two people is frankly none of their damn business.

As I've said, Marriage is a contract in government. Nothing more and nothing less. If you create a will, you don't need the government to sign off on it first. If you write a contract to do work for someone, you don't need the government to sign off on it first. In marriage though, unfortunately you do. THAT is the problem that people do not realize.

First of all, the government is not some alien entity when arbitrating civil contracts. The government (meaning you and the other party involved) acts on the behalf of the interests all parties involved, which is the purpose of arbitration. Legal arbitration couldn't take place without recognizing such contracts as legal and binding and failure to recognize such contracts would make our civil rights ineffective. This is basic for anyone who has even the mildest interest in what civil contracts mean.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Just because the SCTOUS gives an opinion that they feel something is a right, doesn't make it so.

What does make something a right?

[^_^ 5,021]

What does make something a right?

paul does.

[Ban Hammer 12,829]

What does make something a right?

only when the un passes a resolution saying it is.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

What does make something a right?

An act of congress really.

There are plenty of things we don't have a "right" to do/have.

There are plenty of things that the government does not have the "right" to do as well.

Each of those things take a change in the law/constitution of either the Federal Government or the state in which you reside.

On the marriage subject as we're using here. Another thread mentioned 'cousins' marrying. In some states it's a "right" under the law, in some it's not.

Society as a whole ultimately determine what's a right and what's not. Those "rights" generally change depending on what the moral majority wants during that time period.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What does make something a right?

An act of congress really.

So, there are no rights enshrined in the Constitution? The Bill of Rights, in other words, carries a title that belies it's content.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

So, there are no rights enshrined in the Constitution? The Bill of Rights, in other words, carries a title that belies it's content.

An act of congress can change the bill of rights.

Granted, it's not 'easy' to amend the constitution, but it can be done...

[Aubrey 10]

You can grant those rights to whomever you want, but there will still be plenty of groups denied that ability. That is the problem with marriage as I mentioned in my response to Steve above. If you want your best friend's sister to make your health decisions in case of an emergency, she should be able to. The problem is "marriage" in government.

People are discriminated along the lines of taxes each and every day for various reasons.

Again though, this is a state issue, not a Federal Issue. Marriage has no place in the Federal Government at this time. Sure, there might be tax breaks (or soon to be again the tax penalty) for couples who file jointly, but that has nothing to do with the actual contract of marriage itself and who it applies or doesn't apply to.

You cannot just add "same-sex couples" into a catagory without adding any other pair of people who want the same rights in entering that contract together.

It is a federal issue. Federal judges have repeatedly overturned laws that discriminate people's civil liberties regarding marriage (not just for homosexual marriages, but in the past for interracial marriages, etc). The federal government has not made a distinction between marriage and civil unions for the purpose of laws (such as in other countries, where you're in a union according the government and a marriage according to your faith), and as such, citizens are guaranteed equal protection under federal law. States may not violate equal protection.

You can continue to argue this, but the precedent on this matter is pretty clear. It doesn't become less of a federal issue just because you wish it wasn't.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

An act of congress can change the bill of rights.

Granted, it's not 'easy' to amend the constitution, but it can be done...

It takes more than an act of Congress to change the Constitution. I am sure you're aware of the process.

You side-stepped my original question, though. Are rights enshrined in the Constitution? It's really a yes or no type question.

Edited August 5, 2010 by Mr. Big Dog