As long as there is heterosexual marriage as a state institution, there should also be homosexual marriage as well. Since we are all, as our founding fathers said, created equal, any and all rights guaranteed to one group of people must be applied to all people. Contrary to popular belief, gay people aren't just looking for a wedding like everyone else. They're looking for equal rights and benefits to their fellow citizens. Sexual orientation is no reason to deny any American citizens of their basic liberties; homosexuals, like heterosexuals, must be given the right to benefits such as shared taxes, health insurance, hospital visits, wills, and child custody. Otherwise, the American idea of equality and liberty for all is being denied.
Everyone has a right to get married. Yes, that includes marriage of the same sex, different race, and different religion. It is a right, a privilege. It should be honored and obeyed and not entered into lightly. We should treat marriage with love and respect and thank our fore fathers for allowing us that right.
Marriage should be a fundamental right for all. I don't understand why it should even be an issue. 50 years ago, blacks were not allowed to marry whites. What difference does it make based on gender? Love is love no matter who it is, and I believe marriage should not be limited to just a man and a woman.
I do not understand why marriage cannot be a fundamental right for all. Is it not a human right to marry who one loves, regardless of gender or race? Fifty years ago whites were not allowed to marry blacks. What difference does it make what gender one marries? Love is love no matter where you find it.
Marriage should be a fundamental right for all. I don't understand why it should even be an issue. 50 years ago, blacks were not allowed to marry whites. What difference does it make based on gender? Love is love no matter who it is, and I believe marriage should not be limited to just a man and a woman. Who are we to deny people's right to marry the one they love?
In 15 separate cases going back to the 1880s, the US Supreme court has stated that marriage is a basic human right. Then in 1948, Eleanor Roosevelt signed the UN's Declaration of Human rights. Article 16 is solely devoted to the fundamental right to marriage.
There really is no debate.
To deny that marriage is a right is to ignore nearly 130 years of legal precedent, not to mention common sense.
Marriage is a union between two persons who are in love and therefore it should not be limited to just heterosexuals. Gay people are human too and they therefore have the right to do what they want. So their right to marry who they want should not be taken from them.
The equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment means that states must treat all their citizens equally. States can’t favor men over women, whites over blacks, or heterosexuals over gays. The Equal Protection Clause is part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws".
I believe marriage is a fundamental right. I am not certain of the origins of marriage, however it has been around for many years and is often a religious based priority. I do not believe the government or other people have the right to decide who can get married or under what restrictions.
Lets think about this: Rights that are fundamental cannot be taken away. If that is so, then the state would have no right in denying pedophiles, polygamists, zoophiles or incestuous people from marrying. However, the state does ban these types of relationships from marrying. So, these relationships prove that marriage is not a fundamental right and is simply a privilege.
Marriage is not a fundamental right. It is not to be confused with the right to live with anyone you want, which should be a fundamental right. However, marriage is something different, something that has both religious and civil underpinnings. It is possible, though, to be just as committed to another without the label of "married".
It is my strong belief that advocates of same sex marriage wish the label not for any purpose but to gain legitimacy. Unless statistics are wrong, gays are not getting married as much as people would have thought in states where it is legal.
"Marriage between a man and a woman has been the paradigm, the bedrock social institution of diverse cultures and civilizations for all of recorded human history. Nevertheless, on Tuesday, the radical experiment that began in Massachusetts will reach the US Supreme Court when it hears oral arguments regarding the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8, both of which define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The legal precedent is clear in that the Court has already ruled on two occasions that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Murphy v. Ramsey affirmed the federal government’s right to ban polygamy and in Baker v. Nelson, the Court declined to find a constitutional right to same-sex marriage."
The only reason it's considered a right is due to government supporting marriage through benefits otherwise, It's entirely social. The ideas of "equality" change throughout history since it's a man made concept. Using the US Constitution for modern ideas of equality is pretty uneducated when the culture was different back then. Nature designed man and woman to be together to form families that benefit society. That is why marriage has always been largely between a man and a woman throughout history and why the government supported it as such.
According to the recent Supreme Court majority decision in Obergefell, marriage is a "union of a man and a woman [that] always has promised nobility and dignity to all persons..." It is a "respected status" that is "bestowed" by society through the operation of state law. The Court recognizes that there are more concrete legal benefits conferred on marital unions, but that the "States are in general free to vary the benefits they confer on all married couples." In other words, these benefits are ancillary to the status of marriage and are not marriage itself.
Chief Justice Roberts, in his dissent, states that there is no "'Nobility and Dignity' Clause in the Constitution." This is incorrect. Article I, Section 10 specifies that "No State shall ... Grant any Title of Nobility." This is an unusual example of the Constitution expressly denying powers to the states, rather than to the federal government. By the Supreme Court majority opinion, however, the marriage is literally a "Title" ("married") of "nobility." If the purpose of this title really is, as the Supreme Court says, to bestow nobility, then it appears to violate this provision and would therefore be unconstitutional.
From an originalist perspective, it might be questioned how the framers could have possibly intended to outlaw such a basic institution. In the 1700s, marriage represented the legalized subordination of a woman to her husband (coverture), a result that was hardly dignified or noble as we understand those terms today or even by the standards of the time. One could argue marriage was in fact discriminatory and demeaning to women. The Court majority in Obergefell actually dwells for a while on the legal changes to women's status in marriage that have occurred since the country's early days.
If the purpose has shifted away from economic subordination to ennoblement, however, it may be that the concept now runs afoul of the Constitution. The observation of the majority that "laws excluding same-sex couples from the marriage right impose stigma and injury of the kind prohibited by our basic charter" is especially worrisome in this respect. The very reason the framers targeted titles of nobility was to avoid the European practice of having certain people granted special titles that "ennobled" them, while the rest were stigmatized as mere common folk.
If marriage is a special title that dignifies and ennobles while imposing "stigma and injury" on the unmarried, it is certainly violative of the spirit, and arguably the text, of the Constitution itself. Apart from that, it appears to be a form of invidious discrimination that separates all society into two classes for arbitrary reasons, while demeaning the status of those who, whether through choice, law or simple inability to find a consenting partner, remain unmarried. Accordingly, it could be challenged on an equal protection basis as well. The answer must be "no."
Assuming we are talking about the United States... No. There is no "Right to Marriage" in the Constitution or any of it's Amendments. The right is a Private right (owned by a group or person) and not a Pubic right (Constitutional right.)
The only place you could find the Right to Marriage is in the 9th Amendment. However, no right may be based on the 9th Amendment alone... The 9th is only a guideline to interpret other Amendments. The 9th only protects rights that aren't specifically mentioned, but are implied, by another Amendment. The 9th may not, by itself, be a base for the right. No right is recognized solely on the 9th (United States v. Vital Health Products, 786 F. Supp. 761 [E.D. Wis. 1992]).
The right to marriage, if it did exist, isn't fundamental because Marriage is only a social status. The right does not help to preserve Life or Liberty (Pursuit of Happiness isn't a part of the group because quite literally anything could qualify as aiding the Pursuit of Happiness.) The right to marriage isn't necessary to live or have liberty... And while it could, maybe, exist on the premise of pursuing happiness, it couldn't be fundamental just on that premise.