Rights VS Privileges
First I feel it would be appropriate for me to give my views on what a right is. I believe there are many definitions of what a right is. First there are what I would call the basic human rights, these are: Life, Liberty , and the Pursuit of Happiness. These are rights are broad, and because of this we make laws to help guarantee that they are not infringed.
Another definition of rights is a liberty or benefit that is assured to some one by law or constitution.
Next what is a privilege? A privilege is a liberty or benefit that comes with a prerequisite before it can be obtained.
A privilege that is granted by law is a right that comes with a prerequisite.
In the United States of America we are given rights do as we please so long as we do not infringe on the rights of others. Or in other words my rights end where yours begin.
One example of a right that is also a privilege is the right to see a loved one who is unconscious in the hospital. It has the prerequisite that the relationship between the individuals is legally recognized such as spouse to spouse, parent to chilled, chilled to parent, and sibling to sibling. I believe there are others family relationships that will qualify, but I’m not certain.
You could say that the right of seeing your life partner in the hospital is a privilege of marriage. However there is a segment of the population that is denied the right in most states to marry their life partner (lover). This also denies all of the privilege rights that come with marriage to these people.
While the right to marriage is not protected by the federal constitution (there is at lest one state constitution that does protect the right to marriage) it can be extended by proper legislation.
The currant arrangement in regards to marriage violates what are our basic human rights. It takes away the liberty to marry who we choose, and hinders our pursuit of happiness.
This leaves many people with a rather interesting ideological dilemma. For there are many who believe that believe that our laws should extend the same benefits to every one and that basic human rights must not be infringed. At the same time it seems many of these same people have deeply held religious views that teach that such things are wrong, and they feel that they would betray their god if they allowed such rights and benefits to be extended to certain groups of people.
This clash of personal ideals is not new or unique to dealing with gay rights. For a long time interracial marriage was illegal in parts of the country; many people cited there religions to try and keep it that way. When women wanted the right to vote religion was also cited then in attempts to keep them from doing so.
Out of curiosity…what is your view on polygamy? After all, isn’t that just another way to define marriage?
Hugs and Kisses
Polygamy eh? While I don’t think I would enjoy polygamy or even polyandry for that mater, if all parties in the arrangement are consenting to live in that sort of marriage for religious reasons or otherwise I see nothing wrong with the choice to do so. I do think is wrong however to try and force people to live that sort of life if they do not want to do so.
I’ve been informed that you all have been anxiously awaiting my official statement on “rights v. privileges.” I have been stewing about this for a few days, attempting to think about the situation in a logical, unbiased way.
With regards to homosexual marriage (which it seems this post is hinting at), I’m sorry, but homosexual marriage is not a right. Neither is it a privilege; I’m afraid. But, likewise, heterosexual marriage is not a right either; neither is it a privilege. I will begin by stating what rights are—some available even now—for they are them which promote free agency and autonomy. It should be noted: I shall use the masculine pronoun for the sake of argument in reference to any given person of either sex, and I will as well assume that all persons talked about are in 1) the maturity of their facilities and 2) and are in true positions to make clear decisions for themselves.
A person has the right to his own body and property—to do with it as he pleases, to give it to whom he pleases. When a person dies, he has the right to give his properties to his family, an organization of charity, even a bum on the street. This is called a will; it is a legal document granting that which is his to any particular party in the event of his death.
A person has the right to give another the power of his body or property in the present. He may officially declare that a certain other have power to manage his finances and possessions (add them to his bank account or title of property). He may make anyone of his choosing his “power of attorney.” He may, in addition, give whole or in part his possessions away at any time for any reason—granted it is fully his property.
A person has the right to decide what happens to his body—he can withhold from himself life-sustaining needs or treatment, or actively bring about his own death (passive or active suicide)—it is his body, and we have not the ability to force ourselves between himself or his free agency (assuming still he is in a true position to make clear decisions for himself). In the event of a person’s possible future incapacity, he may choose to make a legal decree that another person will have power over his property or body (a living will)—to any such person he so chooses.
A person has the right to decide (preemptively or presently) who can and who cannot visit him in the hospital given the possibility of a medical condition and/or to make health-related decisions in his behalf if an incapacity presents itself—provided clear prearrangements are made.
A person has the right to form allies with another or others in a contract of mutual help and contribution with regards to finances, chores, errands, and care-taking—whether through a commune association or exclusive relationship.
I must add one more right which does not, as of yet, stand available to citizens of the United States: All people—men, women, and children—have the right to adequate and proper health-care not withstanding their health, income, employment, or social or marital status as provided through an entirely socialized healthcare system that is fair to all persons—paid for through taxes paid proportionately weighted by their income—unless there is an opt-out of this social contract, in which one may choose not to pay health-security taxes in return forfeiting any needed benefit that could arise in the future. There should be a complete absence of privatized healthcare which creates exclusion, competition, and profit (such are attributes that undermine the respect for all citizens and life in general).
Except for the last right mentioned (which still needs to be worked for), all of the rights I’ve presented are available for all people—without consideration of their sexual orientation. So, why marriage at all? Well, for two reasons, really. The first is understandable and fits more of the political aspect. It is that marriage is simply a “package deal” of all these rights. It enables people to sign one contract entailing all those rights, without going through all the particular details. The second reason for marriage is more of a psychological one. It enables people to sacrifice their time and legal obligations as a sign and testament of commitment to another (much like investing in an expensive engagement ring as a evidence of a promise. This, in my opinion, is a good thing that helps people to grow as individuals in making their commitments to others. How much do people go against their words anymore? Could I promise another that I will always be in obligation to them “In sickness and health, for richer or poorer….” without a legal contract or time investment? Sure, but it means so much more to people when time and legal obligations are sacrificed in the name of commitment. After all—we’re just human, the process of marriage is, in my opinion, a big help to growing as a person—and for most, produces happiness.
Let’s now talk about what marriage is. Before we could ever consider “redefining” marriage to include same-sex couples, we must actually begin by defining it. What one’s opinion of the concept that we call “marriage” in this country, we need to look at how it is and has been viewed in different cultures. The common applications of marriage have changed considerably within pre-modern, modern, and post-modern western culture.
Independent of a legal definition, “marriage” is just an English word that is widely used in the United States to describe a number of concepts including a legal contract of a relationship, two people who get together to raise children and love each-other, two people of the opposite sex who have lived together for a set period of time (common-law), two people who have publicly declared their romantic/sexual relationship, etc.
Let’s consider some different widely accepted views (within particular cultures) of the term “marriage” (and their translated equivalents):
Now in Sweden, engagement and marriage are seen as similar commitments. At the engagement, rings (gold bands) are exchanged, and at marriage the woman receives a second ring–often with a stone. “Getting engaged is not a signal for planning a wedding–many wait 5, 10, or even 20 years before deciding to marry [of at all]” (Svensson Culture Shock: Sweden 59).
“a majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. . . .[There is an] existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood” (Kurtz “The End of Marriage in Scandinavia” The Weekly Standard Vol. 009 Issue 20).
(I’ve used those two Scandinavian examples because I have studied Swedish culture to a certain extent.)
“It is nearly impossible to formulate in a precise and generally acceptable way what is meant by ‘marriage, ’ either by modern speakers or in ancient texts” (Boswell Same-sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe 9).
“There can be no single answer to the question, what does marriage mean; each culture must seek its own answer” (Kandoian “Cohabitation, Common Law Marriage, and the Possibility of a Shared Moral Life” Georgetown Law Journal August 1987 p. 1861).
Much the same as their heterosexual counterparts, “[h]omosexual marriages in the Roman Empire included public ceremonies and dowries. Even the early Christian church performed marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples” (Quinn Same-sex Dynamics Among Nineteenth-Century Americans 130).
I take the position here that “marriage” has changed definitions (as in its practical applications and treatment) many, many times in the history of civilization. Where once marriage was used primarily for the passing and control of property and wealth/social status, it has now become an arrangement based on feelings of “love” and “companionship.” In many instances, it has become acceptable for heterosexual couples to not have children—whether by choice or not. Whereas the circumstances of common homosexual relationships (long-term commitments) today would not have fit into the former definition, it does in the latter. So, why the opposition to “same-sex marriage”? Is it the motive that, if so-called “conservative” persons cannot stop others from being gay, it will attempt to stop them from being happy? And will that be enough reason to convert to heterosexuality? Is such a conversion possible? And if it is, isn’t it someone’s right to be “gay” or not?
And if not “same-sex marriage” what is the problem with respect to the possibility of “civil unions” that entail the same rights as marriages? Couldn’t a homosexual couple choose to define themselves as “married” after applying a “civil union”? But, then, if a civil union and a marriage are the same in regards to the rights they entail, why have differing terms at all—why not call them all “marriages” or “civil unions”?
With respect to “polygamy,” first of all, it is plain that (given the rights we have as autonomous, free individuals) it should be decriminalized. What is it to us what other consenting adults do in their own homes? Once polygamy is decriminalized society can take care of the real, underlying problems usually associated with such relationships—child/spouse abuse, welfare fraud, statutory rape, etc. Such problems are not inherently present with polygamous relationships, but instead with dangerous and abusive cults. Should polygamy be a legal option? Well, there doesn’t seem to be a high demand that I’ve seen, even here in the desert west of Utah, but if there is, why not? What is wrong with polygamy anyway?
“….this MONOGAMIC ORDER OF MARRIAGE, so esteemed by modern Christians as a HOLY SACRAMENT and DIVINE INSTITUTION, is nothing but a system established by a SET OF ROBBERS….”
- (Brigham Young, The Deseret News, August 6, 1862)