Is Marriage a Right? (virgin, divorce)

[Fluffy]

I do not consider marriage to be a civil right.

[Revasser]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Such as?

There are various treaties between countries that state a marriage from one country will be recognised as a marriage in another.

If the US government suddenly got out of the "marriage business" and starting issuing only civil unions or something, those countries will not be required to recognise them, as they are only obligated by the agreements to recognise marriages. So you may end up with married or "civilly united" tourist couples being treated as strangers if one of them is hospitalised abroad, or arrested or any number of things.

And there is absolutely no guarantee that countries that currently recognise marriages from your country will agree to alter the treaties or sign new ones to recognise the new institution, espcially if it includes homosexual couples. If the marriage laws are just widened, those countries will still be required to recognise them or face the USA kicking up a major stink over mistreatment of its citizens and breach of treaty.

[jewscout]

Originally Posted by krashlocke

I've seen a lot of posts regarding the gay marriage issue (especially given recent state political developments), one which I see both sides on, but for different reasons than the norm. The question I put forth is one of semantics: is marriage of any sort a right? I don't see it on the US Consititution or in any of its' amendments, so then is the arguement that marriage as defined by the state is some sort of natural right?

I get a bit confused by the incessent playing of the "equal rights" card that I was curious to see if the rights were already equal and what we were talking about were equal priviledges. That being the case, should marriage be an institution of the state?

What purpose does it ultimately serve the state - especially given that it's not important enough for the federal Constitution?


Would it ever be an acceptable option for states to eliminate any sort of marriage - why or why not?

priviledge or right, it still is in violation of the US Constitution Amendment 14
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Revasser

There are various treaties between countries that state a marriage from one country will be recognised as a marriage in another.

Why would a U.S. citizen need a foreign country to recognize his or her marriage?

[Revasser]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Why would a U.S. citizen need a foreign country to recognize his or her marriage?

Because if a married couple takes a trip to another country or takes up residency (but without necessarily becoming naturalised) and want to be recognised as married there, these treaties need to exist.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Revasser

Because if a married couple takes a trip to another country or takes up residency (but without necessarily becoming naturalised) and want to be recognised as married there, these treaties need to exist.

What do they do with people from many Scandanavian countries where marriages are purely civil creations of the state? Denmark for example has "civil marriage" which is the same for everyone, including homosexuals. That's the sort of thing I undertstood WanderedOff to be suggesting.

[Wandered Off]

Canada, for one, recognizes same-sex marriages. What kind of trouble has that caused with international treaties when many countries do not?

[Capt. Haddock]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

There is no known society or culture on earth in which pair bonding is not typical. It's one of the basic ways in which humans structure themselves socially.

Not necessarily. There are some traditional cultures were polygamy (or polyandry) are the norm.

I know the Ashanti, in West Africa, do not traditionally marry until they are old. Marriage is seen more as a way to look after the aging than to raise children.

It’s normal, in the traditional culture, for people to have children from several different partners. Raising the children is considered the collective responsibility of the extended family/clan (this is where Mrs. Clinton got her idea that it takes a village to raise a child).

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

What do they do with people from many Scandanavian countries where marriages are purely civil creations of the state? Denmark for example has "civil marriage" which is the same for everyone, including homosexuals. That's the sort of thing I undertstood WanderedOff to be suggesting.

Most civil-law countries have a concept of civil marriage, as distinct from religious marriage (whether it applies to homosexual couples or not).

It is down to each country's laws whether they will recognise same-sex unions from abroad or not.