Marriage is not a Right

I think the article is great. It would be a solution to everything in my opinion. Not sure that it works for all GLB, but the solution would give me exactly what I want. I don't need a document to proclaim my love for my partner.

Ok, here we go. Let's get the non-issue out of the way first: the Constitution gives no rights. The Constitution is a document that limits the ability of government to limit the rights we have inherently. There is an infinite number of rights, noted in less grandiose terms by the 9th Amendment to the Constitution.

Second, let us not parse the definition of marriage. In the religious sense, a marriage is a bonding between a man and a woman in love, before God and family, a sacrament designed to assist in the procreation of children and further the human race. Great. In a secular or legal sense, it is a contract that binds the financial lives of two people and establishes a framework for the raising of children. However, neither the sacrament, nor the legal contract require children and in fact, both are used by people for which procreation is not wanted or practical (my father in-law getting married at 65 to a post-menopausal woman). While there are MANY gay people that want the sacrament (and many churches that will provide it), the MAJORITY of gay people want access to the legal contract/framework and children is not the defining characteristic.

Despite your suggestion that sufficient documentation can provide all the same legal benefits bestowed by government sanction of marriage, it is inaccurate. I will provide 3 examples.

A man was sentenced to 20 years for killing his first wife. His second wife, upon his incarceration, divorced him and, obviously, got custody of their child. She eventually partnered with another woman. For his good behavior in prison, he was released early, got remarried and sought custody of his child so as to remove the child from the 'perverted and disgusting' lifestyle. The Judge agreed that the murderous father was a more fit parent (a natural family) than the lesbian mother (an unnatural family). Case was on the East Coast, early 90s.

Our daughter was adopted by my partner from China. We have been together since before the adoption. Our daughter is currently 14. Because WI does not allow me to adopt our daughter, I have no legal claim on her. WI has held that child rearing/guardianship agreements between same sex partners have no standing. The biological or adoptive parent can deny access to the child (in our case raised jointly for 14 years) and I have no standing to seek visitation. No documents signed by both of us prior to the adopt will be upheld here in WI.

DOMA has been read to imply that civil unions, approved in one state but not available in another state do not have to be recognized. So, a civil union in CA prevents a couple from relocating to another state that does not have civil unions if the couple wishes to maintain their civil union benefits.

A heterosexual couple can be married in any state and all the 'benefits' will follow them whereever they go. They do not have to look up the laws, hire attorneys and redocument their relationship at every border. They are free to move anywhere in the Union and know that their relationship is recognized and respected.

While your suggestion of 50 states with civil unions would eliminate SOME of the issues, it will not eliminate all of them. Whether DOMA will be used to prevent the 'transfer' of civil unions is open to debate (I happen to think it unConstitutional as it stands) but it is clear that some states will NOT enact even civil unions.

Let me address the concept of separate but equal. One of the arguments made in the civil rights era was that blacks could be given exactly the same benefits as whites, but still be kept separate. If a restaurant had restrooms for whites and blacks, there was no discrimination. If schools were provided for black students and white students, funded equally, there was no discrimination. Blacks, and many whites fundamentally disagreed, arguing that separate but equal was discrimination because it classified one group differently than another based on an inherent characteristic. The Supreme Court ruled that separate but equal systems were discriminatory and struck them down. The California Supreme Court did exactly the same thing last year in the marriage/civil union debate. It held that two systems, exactly the same, designed two separate groups based on an inherent characteristic, was discriminatory and in violation of the California Constitution.

Now, there is a solution. One that most gay people would welcome. Eliminate legal recognition of 'marriage'. Establish civil unions for all couples. Marriage would be a sacrament bestowed by religious groups/churches as they see fit. All couples could walk into a courthouse, obtain a 'license' and have legal recognition. 'Marriage' per se would be still between a man and a woman and people could recognize a Mormon marriage, or a Christian marriage or a Jewish marriage or even an Unitarian marriage. But the courts would only recognize a civil union.

(oh, about the analogy – the right to eat peanut butter is not a useful right to someone allergic to peanuts: once gay marriage is allowed, you will be free to marry a member of the same sex also – isn't it great that we can EXPAND rights to allow others the same rights we have! What? You don't want to marry a member of the same sex….well, but you COULD!!)

Government, when it limits the free excise of a right, must have a compelling interest in doing so. I refer you to the Iowa Supreme Court's ruling to see how they handled the compelling interests of the STATE for a strong condemnation of suggestions that the STATE has an interest in denying gays the legal protections granted heterosexuals by 'marriage'.

Finally, I don't understand many on the right. One argument against gay rights is that they(we) are a promiscuous bunch that seek to destroy the family. So, here we have millions of gays (even if it were only 1 million) WANTING the legal and societal framework of 'family' in which to (often) raise children; wanting the legal stability marriage brings; and wanting to build community affirming families and yet, the Right wants to deny them. I can not think that anyone believes that if gay marriage were freely available everywhere tomorrow that millions of heterosexual relationships would dissolve and tens of millions of previously thought straights would rush into gay marriages.

I want to thank you first of all for your thoughtful reply. Discussions such as these will help all of us.

You are correct the Constitution was created by the People to form a Government and instruct the Government on what their limited powers are. We also have to apply ur reasoning to the 9th Amendment as well.

The 9th Amendment does not create federally enforceable rights nor any rights. Judge Antonin Scalia stated so eloquently:

“The Declaration of Independence…is not a legal prescription conferring powers upon the courts; and the Constitution’s refusal to 'deny or disparage' other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even farther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges’ list against laws duly enacted by the people.”

I'm not parsing the definition of Marriage. For thousands of years it has been recognized as the union between a man and a woman across governments, countries, across the world. I would submit that neither my wife and I nor you and your partner, need any governmental framework in assisting us to raise a child.

In regards to your 3 examples:

1. I dont have a lot of the details from your example so I cant offer a thought out opinion as to the judge's actual decision. However I can tell you this – both parties were offered the same course of action in seeking legal custody. Both sides were given proper use of our legal system and both sides were given the ability to respond within the legal system. Its also interesting to note that the 2nd wife had the freedom of choice in deciding who she was sexually oriented to and that might be better left for a separate discussion.

2. In your own personal example, I believe that what your seeking is not so much a legal claim to ur daughter but an out in case you & your partner decide to call it quits. There are many heterosexual couples that once they divorce, for one reason or another, are denied access to their children and lose visitation rights. Additionally you and your partner can make a choice, as current law permits, to move to a state that does recognize civil unions in the that you seek. Additionally you and your partner have the ability to organize, vote, litigate the laws of WI towards what you want.

3. DOMA is not read to imply, but is clearly codified in TITLE 28 > PART V > CHAPTER 115 > § 1738C:

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

It seems to me that the LBGT community has made a serious error in how they go about securing the benefits (not rights) that they want. They've made the mistake in trying to get the Federal Government to secure their benefits when all along their efforts should have been concerted in securing their benefits through the States.

Lets take taxes as an example and apply it to ur argument. Each State has different tax rates and every American has the right to move to whatever state they choose. As a result they must pay State taxes per whatever State they're in.

Now were I to apply the same reasoning and “legal” arguments that the LBGT community does then I would have a basis to say that I, living in Arizona(state income tax), dont have the same benefits and legal standing as a person living in Texas(no state income tax). Therefore I am not being treated equally and my “rights” are being violated. What no one wants to recognize is that the benefits of heterosexual couples are also different in every state.

My point is that the Federal Govt is limited in their powers over states and they have stated that in DOMA.

My solution is one that celebrates the individuality of each person in each state and provides each group, both the heterosexual community and the LBGT community, with what they are seeking. It provides the framework for all, no matter what their sexual orientation is, to enjoy life as they see fit without imposing it on others. I never said it was going to be easy, however IMHO it provides the best solution for all.

Thanks again for your reply and look forward to other discussions with you as well.

Separate but equal.. Right! I wish we could go back to that with black people to! Lets face it, none of us like them either.

Thats the problem in all of this. Marriage is NOT a right. Want the LGBT crowd is looking for is benefits. I merely offered to them and the hetero crowd a solution where LGBT could get their wishes and the hetero crowd could maintain the globally accepted definition of marriage.

BTW – if u want to play the race card thats fine. But dont inaccurately label this as such.

That's what you are saying… I agree with you. We need to restore white and straight people back to their standing. I am with you. Look at all they have done to ruin this country. We don't want gay people influencing anything.. People just keep giving in. We should just make them live in their own cities or something. Then they could have what they want and call it what they want. Then we would not have to see them . I am just saying we could do that to black people too or Jews.

Apparently your incapable of critical thinking or just completely delusional and responding to another persons blog on my blog. You seem to think that you agree with me on things I never said.

It looks to me and everyone else that you that you mistakenly thought you found a companion when all you've really done is demonstrate to the world just how terribly public schooling has failed you.

Trash like yourself is the problem with this world and the reason why mistakes keep being made. I guess you do serve a purpose in demonstrating just what happens when a person with no intelligence gets hold of a keyboard.

You have fun with that at someone else's blog – you know the one you're actually reading.

Just sharing your opinion. Separate but equal. Why should any of them get married. The bible says mixing the races is bad right along with homosexuals. How I am wrong? Are you saying you pick and chose what verses you read?

Marriage is ABSOLUTELY a right. You really are hung up on something if you think otherwise. Marriage is like any other contract– it is a consentual agreement between two people, defining their relationship.

The right of all contracts– bills of sale, employement agreements, and heterosexual marriage all rest on this basic right.

If you need a reference to someone saying this is a right, note freedom of association. That's all this is.

Thus, Gay marriage is just as much a right as straight marriage.

The government has no right to define marriage– not right enumerated in the constitution.

And your problem with this is really peculiar– you're letting your religion or your sexual orientation disrupt your ability to think logically.

Either that, or you don't really have the philosophical basis to understand what human rights are and where they come from.

I suggest you read Atlas Shrugged and stop listening to republicans for a little while.

The traditional religious definition of marriage would be a non-issue except for the fact that the state has decided to not only sell marriage licenses, but to decide who can obtain those licenses and be bestowed the benefits to state sanctioned marriage. IMO, the state should have no role in 'marriage' period because that is a religious ceremony. There should simply be a civil union that would be nonrestrictive in terms of sexual orientation. Let marriage be a religious ceremony without the involvement of the state and let all the tax benefits and other such state bestowed 'gifts' to be tied to a civil union. Religions and other private organizations are exclusionary, but it is an individual's choice whether to be a member of a religion or organization. In denying state sanctioned marriage/union to LGBT we are denying both liberty (the right to act according to his or her own will) and property (aforementioned benefits) and a number of state's have found bans to be inconsistent with their state's Equal Protection clause.

Also, lets not forget that despite what people say 'marriage' has not always strictly been between ANY man and ANY woman. Not too long ago, interracial marriages were not sanctioned by the state. So clearly the definition of 'traditional' marriage is flexible and has been changed based on who is considered a human with rights.

In general, I find the right to be a bit self-contradicting on when the state should be involved in your personal life (marriage, abortion, assisted suicide) and when it shouldn't. Ironically, the left is actually more 'conservative' in that it does not feel the state has any role in these personal life decisions.

You are exactly right. Just simply call their legalized union another name other than Marraige between a man and a woman. They dont need to try to abolish what we have or change what we have at all.

Or is there some other reason they are trying to abolish what we have called marraige that they arent being forhtright about?

You are exactly right. Just simply call their legalized union another name other than Marraige between a man and a woman. They dont need to try to abolish what we have or change what we have at all.

Or is there some other reason they are trying to abolish what we have called marraige that they arent being forhtright about?