Musing on Marriage

Continuing off from the recent court ruling on marriage I have a few questions for people who feel that the ruling was in error.

Do you feel that marriage is a fundamental albeit unenumerated right or is it a privilege of government?

If you feel it is a fundamental right, who sort of reasonable restrictions can the state place upon it before the government has overstepped its bounds and intrudes in the exercise of that fundamental right?

Can the State restrict marriage to only mixed-gender couples that are fertile? Force infertile people to substitute a civil union for their marriage?

Can the State restrict marriage to mixed-gender couples of only the same political party affiliation?

Can the State restrict marriage to mixed-gender couples of only the same race? (Yes, Loving vs West Virginia said no the state cannot, but you might feel that was another example of judicial tyranny.)

Can that State restrict marriage to mixed-gender couples of only the same religious preferences?

For my own opinion marriage IS a fundamental right, though it is unenumerated in the US Constitution. Any of the above restrictions are infringements on the exercise of that right, as is the restriction that it can only be practiced by mixed-gender couples.


One thought on “Musing on Marriage”

  1. I’m going to take a stab at this.

    At its core, marriage ia a choice whereby two individuals deliberately decide to entangle their lives with each other for the purpose of mutual benefit and support. It’s tough out there alone – on so many levels. People by their nature are social animals and we really do need each other – even the most solitary among us.

    Governments stepped in centuries ago and formalized this relationship and choice. It was typically recognized as a male-female relationship (there are some exceptions here and there) and offered the female protection and the male the possibility of sex (without repeated conquest, which wears a body out over time) and children. Religion stepped in later, “sanctifying” it. (Many early governments were a blend of religion and government, so it is possible, that religion came first, then government. The order does not matter.)

    Since the true concept for marriage pre-dates both government and religion [to my knowledge, marriage is not mentioned in Genesis specifically, nor spelled out. It is only stated (paraphrased here) that man was lonely so God made woman for him.], I see no logical reason why marriage (as a deliberate joining or entanglement) can not be considered a right. Why shouldn’t any person be permitted to choose any person they wish with which to entangle themselves, if said person is also willing? We do not have a population problem that requires all possible breeders to reproduce. In fact, we would be better off if we held the world population where it is for a while, really. It is a right, period. We allow the choice and keep the state out of it aside from the formal recording of it.

Comments are closed.