One reason a marriage license is a contract with the State is because a couple enters into marriage with the idea that it is for life. Once they are divorced, the contract is still in effect with the State until the couple dies. It dictates what the protections are by State law after the marriage is over.
Those benefits are not part of the contract, as the state can revoke them while leaving every marriage contract inviolate. Non sequitur, obviously, since no government issued license is necessary for two people to be married. Which of course is utterly worthless to any couple which is determined to honor its marriage contract, since such a couple requires no such back end assistance. Beyond that, were the state to discontinue such "protection", every existing marriage, though unenforceable in court, would be valid nonetheless.
Last I checked, you can be killed regardless of your consent. Doesn't that mean life is not an unalienable right? So you don't believe in national sovereignty. Right?
With any other contract, you can enter into without the State, since the State is a party of the contract, it is a contract with the State. The State determines the contents of the contract. That only happens when a party of the contract is a participant.
Not sure where you get the idea that the government is bothered with emotion, other than when it tries to check that a marriage was not entered for the mere sake of gaining access to the country but because people actually want to share their life. I don't know what it’s like to marry in a registrar’s office in the US, but I have to admit that the civil servant in charge of my wedding did indeed mention love in his little speech rather than just handing us the pen to sign the papers. They try to make the occasion nice. So you find that worrisome? Why? However, again I don’t know what it’s like in the US, but when it introduced same sex marriage, the jurisdiction in the state I live in was certainly less interested in emotion and more interested in guaranteeing equal rights to enter a relationship protected by it for the sake of “social stability”, potential child rearing and “rather boring stuff like estate management and inheritance”. Forgive me for saying this, but it seems to be more you than the government who’s being emotional here.
Because having multiple wives, concubines and slave girls may hinder the pursuit of happiness of the multiple wives (or husbands), concubines and slave girls (or slave boys).
This is unintelligible. No, the core of the marriage contract was written by God. The state specifies civil remedies for breach of that contract. Nonsense. Every legally enforceable contract between private parties includes terms not enumerated in its text, but enumerated in the law of the governing jurisdiction. That hardly makes the state a party to such contracts.
Far be it from me to deny you whatever amusement you find in laughing at the voices in your head, but it's pretty clear by now that you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
Ah, you mean you just saying I am wrong and not backing it up with anything is your idea of proving a point. Got it.
A common enough illusion for those whose infatuation with their preconceived misconceptions overpowers their apprehension of logic and common sense.
No, IOW, you have nothing but you think it's something, so your mind makes the something I bring appear to be nothing.
Who are you to judge what makes them happy? - - - Updated - - - You obviously are not familiar with the most recent applicable pronouncement from our nation's Supreme Court. It's finding is emotion based.
You utterly ignored my link. Your distinctions are bogus. You made them up. My link's info is legit. You lose.
Marriage as a voluntary contract between consenting parties is certainly an unalienable right. Jesus never mentioned the secular state getting involved in the process, either.
I never said I was the judge of that. Note the word “may”. But if you think polygamy and slavery are beneficial for the pursuit of happiness of the multiple spouses and slaves concerned, feel free to argue their case. While I’m sure this pronouncement evoked a lot of emotions in both opponents and supporters of same sex marriage, I doubt very much that the pronouncement itself was emotion based. Judges are trained not to be emotional in their findings and – without being an expert in American law, but being halfway familiar with federal systems in general – this one seems utterly reasonable to me.
As far as I know the origin is religion and I'm against government being involved at all. If someone wanted to "marry" than they would have to abide by the church rules. Government would not recognize it. Religious institutions would have a right to deny marrying anyone they chose. But the government could also recognize "civil unions" seperate from the religious institution called marriage. Those married in the church could only be recognized as a "civil union" by the state - if they requested it. So there would be no basis for discrimination against gays, lesbians, etc.
Your "logic" fails here. If it's about "happiness"--who is allowed to define it? How could anyone proscribe marriage to anyone wishing to marry for whatever makes them "happy" by their own definition? Read it--it is laden with fallacious emotional argument. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/12-307.pdf Are you suggesting an emotional argument is acceptable simply because you agree with the finding?
I voted 'no' because I don't feel like anyone has the right to have others recognize that they really, really like someone and plan to spend the rest of their life with that person. That's like having the right to be recognized as the cool individual that you think you are, which is not something that is unalienable, either. I still support same-sex marriage, though, which presumably is the point of this thread. I don't think the US government should have gotten into recognizing marriages in the first place, but since it does, it has to bestow that associated rights on everyone. And I'm perfectly fine if that means we have to accept incestuous and polygamous marriages, as well. The idea that we'll have to eventually recognize marriages with children is ridiculous for one very specific reason: the legal age of marriage, depending on circumstance, is as low as 13 in some states. So kids can already get married. Anyone objecting to same-sex marriage can just go ahead and drop that point of contention right now.
It is not an unalienable right. Of course I am talking about State recognized marriage. The State could, at any time, invalidate any and all State contracts just like most States do not allow Gay marriage. As far as marriage that is not State recognized, church marriage, the church could also do the same and has in the past. I have an ancestor that was turned out from the church for marrying in the wrong church (1700s).
If it were just a contract between two people, then the State would not be involved. You would think when a couple get divorced that the contract is broken or over but it is not, the other party, the State is still involved for long after, sometimes till end of life.
