Political Crossfire Forums

marriage isn't a real right

that said, it won't change

Jim Crow was institutional discrimination. You can legislate against that.

Since you define it as a Right, is it something the state should have no power to interfere with? Such as the Right to life?

A state-sanctioned marriage is definitely a "privilege," and not a right. Indeed, one does not usually have to pay to complete a form, and then have it signed off on by a bureaucrat, in order to exercise a right.

The confusion here is between marriage (the social tradition) and marriage (the legal status). The social tradition is a right in the sense that nobody can lawfully prevent you from saying you are married according to a particular religious or ethical doctrine. The legal status is a privilege in that it has clear limitations imposed by the state, with a particular set of benefits associated with that status.

As for my opinion, I don't think the state should be involved in marriage at all. There really is no need for it. Taxes should be levied on the individual, and not on families. Tax burdens should not be determined by your marital status (or by the number of kids you produce within that marriage). Issues of custody or splitting assets after a breakup can be worked out privately, through prenuptial agreements, or through arbitration. Beyond the tax, custody and asset-splitting, there is no logical grounds for the state to be involved.

Very well said.

One does not have to apply to exercise a Right.