BrownDuck wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Unless you mean a contract that isn't legally recognized as being a marriage contract but one which you feel is good enough.
I'm thinking he seriously believes that is acceptable, which is why I quoted the California code which clearly states that "consent alone does not constitute marriage. Consent must be followed by the issuance of a license and solemnization as authorized by this division...", nullifying any such declaration by Gbaji to the contrary
You've shown that you don't understand what a homonym is. The "marriage" defined in the California legal code is not the same "marriage" which someone has a fundamental right to. If tomorrow, the California state legislature were to create a new law defining a state benefit for diabetics which they unfortunately labeled "life", and set prerequisites on what you must do to qualify for "life", would you argue that since you have a fundamental "right to life" that it's a violation of your rights for you not to qualify for the state status of the same name?
That would be silly. And so is your entire argument.
A marriage is an agreement between two people to share their lives together. This agreement may be formalized in some manner, perhaps via a contract which can be legally enforceable. The state could then further define a specific marriage contract which, if entered into and other conditions are met, would grant the couple benefits. When we speak of the "right to marry", we're talking about the first type. Certainly, that was the issue in Loving v Virginia. It was actually a felony for the couple to live together as a married couple, even absent any "official" marriage documents. We might even extend that right to include the right to formalize the agreement with a contract and say that if the state bars someone from entering into said contract that this violated their "right to marry".
But only the most obtuse would suggest that the only way to enjoy a right to marry is if you are not just allowed to enter into a specific marriage contract, but are also rewarded by the state for doing so. This is the huge glaring flaw in the argument most of you are making. Marriage is not the benefits. It's the relationship itself. If the state bars you from having the relationship, then your right to marry is being infringed. Failing to reward you is *not* a violation of your rights. Why is this so hard to understand?