In the U.S., is legally recognized marriage a civil right, or something else?
monroe22-ga

---

Request for Question Clarification by politicalguru-ga on 09 Nov 2004 08:43 PST

Dear Monroe, 

Could you please explain what you mean? Are you asking what is the
possible ruling on a theoretical an appeal of someone who cannot get
married because of homosexuality (or other reasons), claiming it is
violating their civil rights? Since there are no such cases, this is a
theoretical question, the answer of which could eb only speculated.
Would you like me to give you such an answer?

---

Clarification of Question by monroe22-ga on 09 Nov 2004 10:20 PST

politicalguru: Yes, you have correctly re-worded my question. I did
not realize it was theoretical, however. My interest is exactly that:
If a homosexual couple is denied a legal marriage, are their civil
rights violated? I have no idea, thus my question.
  Post your answer if you wish.
Thanks, monroe22

The right to marry is a fundamental right under the Federal
Constitution and protected under substantive due process. Therefore
government must meet a strict scrutiny test when it interferes with
the right to marry.
   Under strict scrutiny, a statute abridging the right to marry will
be upheld only if necessary to achieve a compelling governmental
purpose. The government must show that no less restrictive alternative
would suffice.  Thus miscegenation laws were held unconstitutional.
   Note that the recent votes to deny gay marriage did not create new
laws, but amended state constitutions. I don't know the procedure by
which such amendments can be challenged.

Although the right to marry may be considered a civil right, there
have always been restrictions (some written, some understood) on WHOM
a person may marry. The recent spate of laws are clarifying the
definition of marriage. In earlier times, laws arose in response to
Mormon polygamy. Those laws specified that a person could be married
to only one spouse at a time. Other laws forbid marriage to persons
under a certain age, or persons who are close blood relatives. Until
recently, it was "understood" that marriage was a relationship between
a man and a woman. Some states feel that it has now become necessary
to codify that "understanding."

anonoboy, pink, and others: Thanks for your input. Where but on GA can
we find reasonable, non-emotional discussions of controversial topics?
OK, sometimes emotion enters into it. Anyhow, are homosexuals being
deprived of any civil rights? It would seem so, but which?
monroe22

Well ...

If two males presented themselves at a wedding ceremony: one looking
distinctly macho with false moustache and fake duelling scar; the
other looking suitably demure clad in veil and the traditional white
dress ...

How would anyone know?

Unless, of course, some big mouth responded to the question 'Does anyone know ...?

It seems to me that ALL Wedding couples should be asked to submit to
full inspection by the organist as a pre-requisite.

The present system is wide open to abuse.

Don't you think?

probonopublico-ga,
So are you saying that a gay couple in such a situation would be
caught by the organ...

Sorry I couldn't resist.

I am not gay, but my understanding of their point of view is that
there are a whole variety of rights and treatements that married
people have that unmarried people do not have.  They don't have a
problem with those rights except that the state does not allow them to
get married.  Hence the problem.

For example, the US Tax code treats married couples differently than
unmarried couples.  An unmarried couple can't file married, filing
jointly. (and since they can't get married, they are forced to file
seperately.)  A lot of hospitals have strict rules about who gets to
see someone in intensive care or if the person is unable to make a
medical decision a spouse can.  An unmarried partner cannot.  (Not a
problem if they don't want to get married, but for those gay people
who do it is a problem.)  In corporate pensions (401K plans) by law
you have to designate your spouse as beneficery unless you get your
spouse to sign a notarized statement giving up that right.  In divorse
procedings a married couple are treated differently with respect to
property rights, alimony, and child care/ visitation etc. than people
who live together.  I have friends who are gay and have children
(adoption, and artificial insemination).  If their "partneership"
broke up then I imagine it would be a mess with regards to the
children.  At least more of a mess than married people. (I imagine
divorce is messy anyway.)  Fortunately, I work for a company that does
recognize gay couples and will extend medical benefits, etc. to the
gay partner as if they were married.

So why not just give them civil unions?  If the purpose of civil
unions is to give gays marriage but call it something else then why
call it something else? It just makes increases the potential that
someone will recognize married people but not civil union people. 
Call it the same thing; less chance of descrimination, less laws to
rewrite, etc.(fairer)  If a particular church will not marry gay
people the government should not force them to.  Just like today, you
can have a civil ceremony or a ceremony in a church, synogoge, temple,
mosque, etc.  and it is still called marriage.  Just like today no
church is forced to marry anyone they desire not to. (in the US)

As I said I am not gay, I am conservative (mainly), but I have seen
loving gay couples.  They are raising their children and have the same
concerns I have.  They are people also.  Let them declare their love
for each other and let them get married.  What happens behind close
doors between concenting adults isn't any of my business.

scubajim-ga: I understand and am in sympathy with your viewpoint. But
take a moment to read pinkfreud's comment. Do you approve of polygamy,
incestuous marriage, or child brides? You don't? Or if you do, excuse
me? There must be a bright line beteen legal marriage and all other
unions. The advantages given to traditional marriage are in accordance
with age-old custom. So, when gay unions predominate, why then, gay
marriage will be the norm and shall receive all legal and financial
advantages. Until then, status quo.
monroe22

I'd probably only approve of polygamy if I could find multiple wives
and they had sufficient wealth to take care of me and had great
adoration for me. <grin>

The main problem I see with polygamy is not so much the theoretical
aspects, but the current practice.  Currently, (in the US) there are
"enclaves" of such people.  In general it seems that these are cases
of child abuse, children groomed for the pleasure of one man.  This is
not polygamy so much as child abuse under the guise of polygamy.  Also
some of these polygamy cases are really abuse of the welfare system.

As for child brides, I don't consider people not of majority age (at
least) to be consenting adults and therefore they should not marry.

As for incest, are the people of majority age?  Are they mentally
competent?  I don't have a real problem if they are old enough and
mentally competent.  (although from a tax point of view it could be a
method of avoiding estate taxes...)  Human nature being what it is the
percentage is going to be much lower than gay marriages.

Also along the lines of polygamy and polyhandry I think people of
majority age (21, not 14) and mentally competent are going to be rare,
but more so than the incest number.  But as a practical matter I would
be for marriage between only 2 people. (majority age and mentally
competent, and not inebriated at time of marriage))

Again, this is just my opinion and isn't really factual.  It isn't a
rebuttal of Pink's answer.

scubajim-ga: Your comment is thoughtful and temperate. But, what I am
asking, if some persons are pro-gay marriage but against some other
possible unions, why is a stance against gay marriage unreasonable? Is
reason only on one side? If those who wish to legalize gay marriage
but wouldn't dare suggest that heterosexual marriage should be
outlawed, I ask: What exactly are the guidelines which include some
unions but forbid others? By taking the stance that only heterosexual
marriage should be legal, consistency and logic trump all others until
society decides otherwise.
monroe22