Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The supreme court does not issue laws. The the constitution doesn't mention marriage, it's up to the state to legislate that as they see fit, not the supreme court- they just interpret the law.
And my point is that the supreme court has already interpreted the concept of marriage as being a fundamental civil right provided by the constitution covered under the 14th amendment.
Here is what the court has stated thus far:
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."
"Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State."
Last edited by Forest_Hills_Daddy; 08-03-2012 at 09:21 PM..
The question is whether there is such a thing as a right to marriage. The ICCPR states that there is and this was signed by the US on behalf of the American people.
It was signed with five "reservations," five "understandings," and four "declarations." Not as a blanket agreement. Even more importantly, it's up to the U.S. government to decide whether or not to actually apply it within the states and the government has clearly chosen not to (and whether applying it would be Constitutional or not is not even clear).
All of this is just to say that the ICCPR has no relevance in a discussion on the legality of domestic laws relating to marriage in the USA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forest_Hills_Daddy
And my point is that the supreme court has already interpreted the concept of marriage as being a fundamental civil right provided by the constitution covered under the 14th amendment.
As far as I can tell they've only ever ruled certain restrictions on marriage were wrong, not that all restrictions are wrong. The Supreme Court generally rules far more specifically on particular legal issues than you are suggesting.
It was signed with five "reservations," five "understandings," and four "declarations." Not as a blanket agreement. Even more importantly, it's up to the U.S. government to decide whether or not to actually apply it within the states and the government has clearly chosen not to (and whether applying it would be Constitutional or not is not even clear).
All of this is just to say that the ICCPR has no relevance in a discussion on the legality of domestic laws relating to marriage in the USA.
I did not say that the ICCPR established the legality of the right to marriage, just the morality. And if the US did not support it, why sign it? It could have asked that the language be stricken off altogether. That's all. After all, there are people who profess to whatever values they say others should ideally adhere to and not actually live by them. I think they are called "hypocrites".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester2138
As far as I can tell they've only ever ruled certain restrictions on marriage were wrong, not that all restrictions are wrong. The Supreme Court generally rules far more specifically on particular legal issues than you are suggesting.
In as far as the question about whether marriage is a right is concerned, the language is clear. Marriage is a right and the freedom to marry cannot be infringed on by the state.
Therefore, marriage is a right in the legal sense. The only question seems to be whether certain people should be excluded from this right.
And my point is that the supreme court has already interpreted the concept of marriage as being a fundamental civil right provided by the constitution covered under the 14th amendment.
Here is what the court has stated thus far:
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."
"Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State."
It's not a civil right, it's classified as a civil liberty-look it up. Sadly the two get used interchangeably but they mean very different things and it's easy to mix up- heck even I get them mixed up. As it stands, the right to marry is not a civil right. It is a civil liberty, further more and in contradiction the supreme court has also defended the state's right to define what a marriage is.
And the court has said a LOT more about marriage then what you've cited:
"The State…has absolute right to prescribe the conditions upon which the marriage relation between its own citizens shall be created, and the causes for which it may be dissolved"
-Pennoyer v. Neff
"Marriage, as creating the most important relation in life, as having more to do with the morals and civilization of a people than any other institution, has always been subject to the control of the legislature….rights under it are determined by the will of the sovereign, as evidenced by law.”
-Maynard v. Hill
The supreme court has also argued that marriage is the union of one man and one woman:
"No legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth…than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political movement."- Murphy v. Ramsey
I did not say that the ICCPR established the legality of the right to marriage, just the morality. And if the US did not support it, why sign it? It could have asked that the language be stricken off altogether. That's all. After all, there are people who profess to whatever values they say others should ideally adhere to and not actually live by them. I think they are called "hypocrites"
I think what's being said is that the ICCPR has no authority over the constitution even though it was ratified.
I have never even heard of this place until all this contraversy started. Is there any in NYC?
I think there's only one, it's in NYUs food court. There's lots of Chik-fil-a chains in the south and southwest- probably other places too- but not many in the northeast.
I made it clear that the ICCPR is a moral, and not a legal obligation. There is no need to insist that it has no authority over the constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alkonost
It's not a civil right, it's classified as a civil liberty-look it up. Sadly the two get used interchangeably but they mean very different things and it's easy to mix up- heck even I get them mixed up. As it stands, the right to marry is not a civil right. It is a civil liberty
Did you check on when those rulings you quoted were made? They were all made in the 19th century and do not rule that marriage is not a right. Therefore, none of them over-rule Loving vs. Virginia (1967) where the language clearly and explicitly stated:
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
"Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival." (Loving clearly calls it a civil right and not a "liberty", as you stated)
"Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State."
As a matter of fact, Maynard vs. Hill (1888) which you cited was used as one of the bases for Loving vs. VA.
And even an average lawyer can make the obvious point that Murphy vs. Ramsey (1885) does not take away the right to marry that the Loving ruling stipulated was grounded in the 14th amendment. The best Murphy can argue is that some people should be excluded from that right. But that would be a tough position to defend given that a 20th century ruling clearly stated that marriage is a basic civil right and not just a liberty.
I made it clear that the ICCPR is a moral, and not a legal obligation.
Aw, is the UN gonna put the U.S. in time-out if we keep ignoring it?
I don't know why we're arguing about the legal issues. I fully support marriage equality and think it's silly to oppose it in this day and age. My only opinions that are relevant in this thread are:
1) Companies have the right to express whatever opinion they want
2) Citizens have the right to patronize whatever business they want
3) Government officials DO NOT have the right to discriminate in their legislation based on the political and religious leanings of citizens and groups of citizens (corporations)
4) I fully support marriage equality
5) I support Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day on the basis of point #3, support the Same-Sex Kiss Day or whatever it was called on the basis of point #4, and support anyone who chooses to boycott based on point #4
6) I like their chicken and will continue to eat it until they actually start discriminating against someone and not just talking about it
I have never even heard of this place until all this contraversy started. Is there any in NYC?
Me neither. I've never seen nor heard of one.
As odious as the company is, this is apparently a marketing coup d'etat. Pure genius to put themselves on the map.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
