Where in the contitution does it say that marriage is a right?

[Undies]

I wanted to get married and couldn't.  You don't have to be in prison for that.

What you have to do is get your desired person to want to marry you back. 

This is why I continue to deny that marriage is an individual right.  You can't just get married because you want to.

When you have a right to do something, you can just go out and do it, right then.  Like speaking, or worshipping God, or refusing to consent to a search and requiring a warrant.

Common sense...

Oh, so you weren't denied any right to marry.  You wanted special rights.  There is a HUGE difference.  Words mean things.  You were denied nothing.  We all have the same rights. 

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I subscribe to the principle that the government (federal and state) exists to protect the rights of the citizen. The rights of the citizen must take precedence over the power of the government, unless the government's compelling interest can be proven.

Alas, I have come to the proposition that far too often people decalre things they personally desire to be "rights" as a means to tell others "no, you can't say no."

If we continue to declare marriage a right than we will lose the ability to regulate it and with it the right to regulate our society. No, I'm not advocating social engineering, I'm advocating free people being able to consent to the laws governing them and being able to vote for issues according to their conscience. It's a balancing act and one that people have seldom been able to affect but we cannot impose a reverse tyranny of license in the name of freedom.

[Big Dog]

I wanted to get married and couldn't.  You don't have to be in prison for that.

What you have to do is get your desired person to want to marry you back. 

This is why I continue to deny that marriage is an individual right.  You can't just get married because you want to.

When you have a right to do something, you can just go out and do it, right then.  Like speaking, or worshipping God, or refusing to consent to a search and requiring a warrant.

Common sense...

You are confusing rights with opportunities.

A mute person has the right to "freedom of speech", even if he can't talk.

A man who lives alone has the right of "freedom of assembly", even if there is no one around to assemble with.

A man has the right to keep and bear arms, even if he doesn't have a gun in his house or live near a gun store, or has no hands with which to hold a rifle.

A man has the right to "freedom of the press", even if he is illiterate.

And an unborn baby has a right to life, even if he has no knowledge that the right exists.

[GOBUCKS]

Who denied you that right?

Uh...I think he's telling a stevenumbers story...he asked and she said no.

[ExGeeEye]

For what it's worth, this is my last word on the subject.

Individual rights do not depend on the agreement, much less the permission, of any other person.  A=/=B.

That which depends on the agreement or permission of another person, is not an individual right.  B=/=A.

It has been argued, backed up with a Supreme Court citation (ptooi!) that two people who agree together to be married have the right to be married.

In the event, however, it appears that such "right" is subject to the permission-- licensure-- of the State (Federal, Local, whatever)--which can be denied under such conditions as the State has decided.  This argues against it being a right, but rather a privilege extended to those favored by the State and denied to those disfavored.

[Big Dog]

For what it's worth, this is my last word on the subject.

Individual rights do not depend on the agreement, much less the permission, of any other person.  A=/=B.

That which depends on the agreement or permission of another person, is not an individual right.  B=/=A.

It has been argued, backed up with a Supreme Court citation (ptooi!) that two people who agree together to be married have the right to be married.

In the event, however, it appears that such "right" is subject to the permission-- licensure-- of the State (Federal, Local, whatever)--which can be denied under such conditions as the State has decided.  This argues against it being a right, but rather a privilege extended to those favored by the State and denied to those disfavored.

Too bad you ceded the field, friend. I encourage you to return.

You made several errors.

1. Individual rights do not depend on the agreement, much less the permission, of any other person.

Incorrect.

Amendment I: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Each citizen has the right to peaceably assemble, yet it is physically impossible for one person to "peaceably assemble" alone. An enumerated individual right, which requires the assent and participation of at least two people.

2. It has been argued, backed up with a Supreme Court citation (ptooi!) that two people who agree together to be married have the right to be married.

Incorrect. But, I'll give you credit for misunderstanding my position, rather than deliberately mischaracterizing it.

Each person has the right to get married. Two people do not have the right to get married, as each right exists for an individual, even if exercising that right requires more than one person (see #1 above, or see "the right to make a contract".) The state has the power to place restrictions on the exercise of that right, as exists for every other right.

In conclusion, if you can convince the Supreme Court that your unsupported opinion trumps law and precedent, you may succeed in having "the right to marry" delisted from the rights the rest of us enjoy; but you're probably going to have to come up with a better argument than the one you presented here.

[obumazombie]

For what it's worth, this is my last word on the subject.

Individual rights do not depend on the agreement, much less the permission, of any other person.  A=/=B.

That which depends on the agreement or permission of another person, is not an individual right.  B=/=A.

It has been argued, backed up with a Supreme Court citation (ptooi!) that two people who agree together to be married have the right to be married.

In the event, however, it appears that such "right" is subject to the permission-- licensure-- of the State (Federal, Local, whatever)--which can be denied under such conditions as the State has decided.  This argues against it being a right, but rather a privilege extended to those favored by the State and denied to those disfavored.

Don't bow out of this debate now, I am enjoying following your very strong arguments and logic.