Yes, It's Their Human Right (Gay Marrage)

[n2doc]

Wa Po has a good discussion section on this issue. Here is one of the posted opinion pieces:

Yes, It's Their Human Right
Bill Emmott

London, England - This question is upside down, in both moral and logical terms. Instead it ought to read: "Why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to marry?".

The burden of proof, in other words, should be carried by those who oppose legal and moral equality for homosexuals, not those who favor it. Marriage is a pledge of commitment, of a long-term bond, between two people to stay together, to look after each other, to be faithful to one another, to share costs, incomes and assets. To decide to marry is to decide to make an extra, stronger commitment beyond simply stating one's love, or simply living together. I can see no reason why this should be denied to one category of human beings on grounds of their sexual preferences.

Some respond by saying that marriage is, by definition, between a man and a woman. But this is like saying that nothing should ever be changed from its initial state. That old definition is wrong. So it should be changed. Others argue that marriage is there to protect children. Nonsense: that may be a nice side-effect of the institution, but it is not its essential purpose. My wife and I have no children. Does that mean we are not entitled to be married? Of course not.

It is a simple question of equal human rights. If you want to complicate it, then add an argument of social order and practicality: the more committed couples we have in our societies the better. It makes no sense to deny that extra pledge of commitment to people who want to make it. And "civil unions" or other quasi-marital partnerships are not enough. The right outcome is full legal equality.

Bill Emmott is the former editor of The Economist magazine, a leading international current affairs publication from England. He is now an independent writer, speaker, and consultant on international affairs.

more:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/

[WCGreen]

1. I'm sorry.... But I don't see Marriage as a human right....

Nor a civil right...

It is a ceremonial bond born out of religion that is backed-up by legal, or civil matters...

Those legal or civil matters can, and should be "divorced" from the marriage ceremony...

[mondo joe]

4. So Loving v Virginia wasn't about civil rights?

What do the court and attorneys know anyway?

[WCGreen]

6. I'm not an attorney... I'm an accountant...

I just don't think ceremonies should be elevated to represent the human condition....

Lawyers and courts can be wrong...

[mondo joe]

8. That explains your misunderstanding of civil rights.

And it's not the ceremony that makers it civil rights - it's the legal recognition.

[WCGreen]

9. The legal recognition can be divorced from the ceremony...

You still need a liscense, which if I am not mistaken, is valid whether or not a ceremony is performed in a church or in front of a magistrate...

And you can be recognized as married if you live common law by several states and the IRS...

[mondo joe]

10. The ceremony is irrelevant.

Gays have ceremonies that are not recognized.

It's a civil right.

[WCGreen]

11. But it is definatly not a human right....

[mondo joe]

12. Yes, it is a human right.

Self determination. Equality before the law. The right to have your family relationships recognized.

One wonders what you think IS a human right.

[WCGreen]

13. Those are Civil Rights.....

[mondo joe]

14. I'll stick with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.


Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.



Goodness knows what you imagine Human Rights are if these are not included.

[WCGreen]

15. Article 7....

Yes...

Article 16, no....

on edit, Article 7 makes article 16 redundant...

[mondo joe]

17. Then you agree it is a human right. Good.

Even though you are wrong about the redundancy.

[Solon]

16. You know marriage isn't really religious, right?

It used to be just a property transfer contract between a father, and the would be husband. Usually such contracts demanded a dowry from the wife's family, and/or some service to be done by the would be husband.

Up until about the Middle Ages, this pretty much was what Marriage was, and remained, for the commoners at least, the ceremonial weddings were reserved for the upper classes. In fact, for many years, churches REFUSED to perform marriages for people, particularly the lower classes. Not much money in it, and for many of the poor, they simply didn't have time for it. This is part of the reason "common law" marriages were so COMMON. In fact, during most of the middle ages, marriages were performed by the dozen per day in churches, basically you donate what you could, say a couple of quick vows, and go on your way, usually back to the house you both already live in.

Marriage was legalistic in the beginning, though nowadays, its evolved with certain consistent ceremonial and/or religious trappings, and churches now participate in "blessing" said ceremonies according to their own rules. Another thing that evolved, of course, especially during the 19th and 20th centuries, is that it was no longer a property transfer between a father and a husband, though that particular part of the marriage now plays a big part in the symbolic trappings of the ceremony, the giving away of the bride. Today, marriages are contracts, as they always were, where two people now agree to spend their lives together, and as a consequence of that contract, they receive certain benefits from the State.

[karlrschneider]

2. There are some who appear to believe a Las Vegas 'marriage'

between a man and a woman who met 3 days ago is somehow more "sanctified" than a faithful relationship
between two people of the same gender who have been together for 20 years and simply want it to be
recognized as a true and legitimate commitment worthy of equal rights. Why some people refuse to allow it is a mystery but there it is. :eyes:

[WCGreen]

3. Exactly why the ceremony should be divorced from

the legal and civil matters...

[mitchtv]

5. One should go to City Hall for your license

(civil union preferably) and, to a church for your marriage , should you require one. Gov't should not be in the marriage business
however, that's never gonna happen

[WCGreen]

7. Totally agree....