Is Marriage a Right? (virgin, divorce)

[Willamena]

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?

Marriage is a human right, per Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights signed by member nations of the United Nations in 1948. This declaration guarantees that everyone may marry and found a family (hence disputes about marriage laws centre around the definitions), and that this right will be protected by the State.

Originally Posted by krashlocke

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?

The careful wording of the human right makes it clear that it is founded in equal rights; so yes, by extrapolation it is an issue of equal rights to deny some people marriage rights. Priviledges come after marriage.

Since it is a human right protected by the State, it shouldn't matter if marriage is an institution of the State or the Church, or some other body.

Originally Posted by krashlocke

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

I think it's a matter of cultural self-identity for the people who compose the State to see marriage defined according to a certain religious ideal. As to the constitutional importance, I don't know.

Originally Posted by krashlocke

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

"Acceptable" is entirely relative. They certainly have the right to legislate such under the laws of their Nation. I don't think it would be a very useful thing, especially as marriage is so ingrained in the identity of our "social units" (reminds me of the Coneheads, with their "parental units").

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Revasser

Because it's still "marriage", they haven't changed their laws to be "civil unions" or anything instead. It's all about the terminology, in this case.

If it's just a matter of semantics, then the U.S. states could call it "civil marriage" and the individual religious groups could call it whatever they want. That would require no treaty revisions then.

[Revasser]

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.

Oh, I know what you guys mean. I'm just bringing up one reason why it's better to widen "marriage" then change the whole deal to "civil unions."

The institutions may well be the same in practice domestically, but in international agreements like this, terminology matters. If, say, some foreign country with a marriage treaty with the Netherlands denied a married lesbian couple the same rights as a married straight couple while the couple was in their territory, the Netherlands government could legitimately challenge it on the ground of a breach of treaty. If they had changed their laws to use a different term, like "civil unions" and the foreign did the same to either couple, the Netherlands would not have that grounds for challenge because Foreign Country X does not have a treaty with them to recognise "civil unions."

[Revasser]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

If it's just a matter of semantics, then the U.S. states could call it "civil marriage" and the individual religious groups could call it whatever they want. That would require no treaty revisions then.

Absolutely, and that's exactly what I'm getting at!

It's just a reason why changing the name completely isn't a great idea, because it has wider consequences than just a word substitution in domestic law.

[Hacker]

Gay marriage is "right" for the gay couple who decides to get married and should be nobody else's say so! A gay married couple doesn't affect anyone's life in any unmeaningful way so the one's that it supposively "affects" needs to mind thier own business and worry about thier own life, not anyone elses! Grrr, I hate to state my opinions on very serious issues such as this but heck with it!

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by Capt. Haddock[FONT=Arial

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

[/font]In cultures where polygamy and polyandry are the norm, the norm is still the pair bond. A group marriage (in which everyone was equally married to everyone else) is not a pair bond, but the spouses in a polygamous or polyandrous marriage are pair bonded rather than married as a group.