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.
If that were the case. Would a single person get the same privileges as a married person?
That's too obscure a question. Which privileges? Why does the state make the distinction between single and married? What interest of the state does it serve?
ALL laws that affect individuals and their rights have to be based on a state interest that outweighs individuals' rights.
For instance, when the state passes laws restricting free speech, they have to be specific and pointed in defining those restrictions, and in explaining what interest the state has in such restrictions.
An interest based simply on will of the majority is rarely sufficient.
If you regulate my rights, then they are no longer rights, but privileges. Do you get that???
They are still rights.
In a society where people coexist, there is a balancing act that has to occur. My rights might conflict with your rights, and in those conflicts, we, as a society, have determined that the courts have the knowledge and authority to resolve those conflicts. The court, when weighing rights against rights, will often restrict those rights. The goal is not to turn rights into privileges. The goal is to maximize everyone's rights as much as possible. The goal is to protect those who are weaker, be it politically weaker, financially weaker, socially weaker, from the will of those with more power. Arguably, a majority always has more power, and so the courts are often the bulwark protecting the rights of minorities. That's why the will of the majority is probably the poorest justification in a court of law for impinging on individuals' rights.
That's too obscure a question. Which privileges? Why does the state make the distinction between single and married? What interest of the state does it serve?
ALL laws that affect individuals and their rights have to be based on a state interest that outweighs individuals' rights.
For instance, when the state passes laws restricting free speech, they have to be specific and pointed in defining those restrictions, and in explaining what interest the state has in such restrictions.
An interest based simply on will of the majority is rarely sufficient.
Why is it so obscure, if the federal government is to treat us all equally, as INDIVIDUALS.
It is a right, when 2 people, hell 3, 4, 5 or more to co-habitat and have a family. It becomes a privilege when government gets involved and grants special privileges, that unmarried people DO NOT get. This the reason gays want a piece of the government given privileges, that come with government marriage.
In a society where people coexist, there is a balancing act that has to occur. My rights might conflict with your rights, and in those conflicts, we, as a society, have determined that the courts have the knowledge and authority to resolve those conflicts. The court, when weighing rights against rights, will often restrict those rights. The goal is not to turn rights into privileges. The goal is to maximize everyone's rights as much as possible. The goal is to protect those who are weaker, be it politically weaker, financially weaker, socially weaker, from the will of those with more power. Arguably, a majority always has more power, and so the courts are often the bulwark protecting the rights of minorities. That's why the will of the majority is probably the poorest justification in a court of law for impinging on individuals' rights.
If I let another man regulate my rights, that were give to me by my creator, then I have relinquished my rights to a privilege, granted to me by another man.
And you wonder why the Progressives that want to regulate your rights, got a figgin ass beating this election cycle and people like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are becoming so popular.
Why is it so obscure, if the federal government is to treat us all equally, as INDIVIDUALS.
It is a right, when 2 people co-habitat and have a family. It becomes a privilege when government gets involved and grants special privileges, that unmarried people DO NOT get. This the reason gays want a piece of the government given privileges, that come with government marriage.
It's obscure because you aren't talking about anything specific.
If you have a law that denies a specific right, then the state will have a justification for why it's in the interests of the state to deny such a right.
It is a right for people to co-habitat and have a family.
The regulation of marriage, which isn't something that the United States invented, has historically been justified by the state's arguments that marriage benefits the state. Marriage provides social stability for one thing. And marriage provides a system for the transfer of property. The state's interests in social stability and a dependable, regular system for the transfer of property, are both compelling interests that have been seen as strong arguments for the incentives that governments provide to encourage marriage. The incentives have generally been considered available to all, but we've come to realize that actually the prohibitions against same-sex marriage actually denied those incentives to a specific group of individuals in our society. That's the crux of the DOMA decision. The right to marry in incentivized in our society, for reasons the government can justify. The fight for gay rights has been around restrictions of those incentives that the government must justify if it is to keep those restrictions. Up until the 6th Circuit ruling, the courts have been ruling against some of those restrictions.
If I let another man regulate my rights, that were give to me by my creator, then I have relinquished my rights to a privilege, granted to me by another man.
And you wonder why the Progressives that want to regulate your rights, got a figgin ass beating this election cycle and people like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are becoming so popular.
If your argument depends on rights being given by a creator, you've already relegated such rights to a privilege.
Rights are inherent. They are a part of the condition of being a human being, of being competent and of sound mind.
However, part of the condition of being a human being is also being part of a society. You are free to try to become a hermit, and live without a society. But if you choose to be part of society, then you have to accept that not only do you have rights, but that the other members of your society have rights, too. And sometimes those rights will come into conflict, and that conflict must be resolved if you are going to continue to be a part of that society. The resolution is a voluntary agreement between the parties at conflict that generally involves restrictions on the exercise of one or both of the parties' rights.
That is what is argued, Laws were able to regulate it, by state. Making it a privilege, not a right. There can be no laws or regulation of a right, or one would breech that right.
This right/privilege distinction is relevant to a 14th Amendment Due Process analysis, but it's beside the point and completely irrelevant in a 14th Amendment Equal Protection analysis. (And just because something is a Fundamental Right for Substantive Due Process purposes doesn't mean there can't be any regulation of it - it's just that any regulation of the Fundamental Right will be analyzed under the strict scrutiny standard.)
As to Due Process, the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that marriage is a "fundamental right." My thought is that this declaration of marriage being a fundamental right applies to private marriage associations, not civil marriages. Civil marriage is a law - it gives certain legal (not Fundamental) rights (privileges, protections, benefits, and responsibilities) to couples who want them. I don't see any reason why a state has to offer these legal rights of marriage - if Colorado wanted to abolish its marriage law regime tomorrow, I don't see why they couldn't. On the other hand, who I want to associate with and deem my spouse outside of any legal marriage framework is a fundamental right, and I think the government has no business whatsoever regulating that association.
Certainly the gay marriage proponents are making a Due Process argument - but that's not "what is (being) argued" as you claim. It's the backup argument to the main Equal Protection argument. And the 6th Circuit addressed it. For purposes of the argument, the 6th Circuit assumed civil marriage is a fundamental right, but then concluded that when the Supreme Court calls marriage a fundamental right it was implicitly saying man/woman marriage - that there is a fundamental right to a man/woman civil marriage, not a broader fundamental right to marriage. In any event, I would think that if the Supreme Court does consider civil marriage a fundamental right, then it only helps the pro gay marriage side (in other words, I think the 6th Circuit conclusion is nonsense).
But again, that's the backup argument. The main argument is an Equal Protection argument. The Equal Protection Clause applies to any and all State laws - regardless of whether the law concerns or regulates a privilege or a right. The Equal Protection clause is there to prevent different groups of people from being treated differently under the law, and there is a body of law to determine when laws are allowed to treat different groups differently and when they can't (it identifies suspect classes and then has a 3 tiered analysis - rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny).
As such, the Equal Protection clause applies to a state marriage law that excludes gay people from the privileges of marriage, or a state driving law that bans gay people (or Christian people, or women) from the privileges of driving, or a zoning law that bans mentally ill people from building a group home in a certain neighborhood, or a drinking law that sets a different age for men and women to enjoy the privileges of drinking alcohol, or an ordinance that regulates what types of businesses can advertise on the sides of cars, etc.
So again, the main issues in this case are 1) do these states have a rational reason for banning gays from marriage law or alternatively 2) should gays be considered a suspect or quasi-suspect class and afforded strict or intermediate scrutiny under a 14th Amendment Equal Protection analysis.
It's obscure because you aren't talking about anything specific.
If you have a law that denies a specific right, then the state will have a justification for why it's in the interests of the state to deny such a right.
It is a right for people to co-habitat and have a family.
The regulation of marriage, which isn't something that the United States invented, has historically been justified by the state's arguments that marriage benefits the state. Marriage provides social stability for one thing. And marriage provides a system for the transfer of property. The state's interests in social stability and a dependable, regular system for the transfer of property, are both compelling interests that have been seen as strong arguments for the incentives that governments provide to encourage marriage. The incentives have generally been considered available to all, but we've come to realize that actually the prohibitions against same-sex marriage actually denied those incentives to a specific group of individuals in our society. That's the crux of the DOMA decision. The right to marry in incentivized in our society, for reasons the government can justify. The fight for gay rights has been around restrictions of those incentives that the government must justify if it is to keep those restrictions. Up until the 6th Circuit ruling, the courts have been ruling against some of those restrictions.
If it is regulated, and can be altered at any time by government, then it is not a right, no matter if that is what you wish to label it. Privileges can be given, altered and taken away. Rights cannot.
If it was a right, we would not be here debating this.
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.
