mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
> Kevin Gowen <kgowenNOSPAM@myfastmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
> 
> 
>>>The fact that you do not understand something does not validate your
>>>opinion. Marriage is, like a good many things, a civil right.
> 
> 
>>By no definition of the term is it a civil right, or a right at all. How 
>>many rights can you name that are predicated on a license granted by the 
>>state?
> 
> 
> Voting, among others.

Wrong. The right to vote in an inherent right. Suffrage is universal, 
and the state exercises no discretion in issuing a voter's registration 
card. All citizens of age have the franchise until they lose it e.g. 
upon losing civil rights after a felony conviction. This is one way you 
can discover that marriage is not a civil right. When a person loses his 
civil rights upon a felony conviction, he is still able to marry even if 
he is unable to vote, hold public office, and serve on a jury.

Civil marriage, on the other hand, is not an inherent right. It is a 
*creation* of the state's police power. As such, the state has broad 
authority and discretion in regulating civil marriage just as it has 
broad authority and discretion in regulating traffic on public roads. 
The state may exercise its discretion regarding the issuance of a 
marriage license on many grounds. It may choose not to issue a marriage 
license for a marriage that is bigamous, incestuous, fraudulent, by 
proxy, when one or more parties is under the age of majority, when one 
or more parties lacks capacity, et cetera. The state may even choose not 
to issue licenses for civil marriages at all, just as it may refuse to 
put up traffic signs and signals.

If you cannot understand the difference between an inherent right and a 
discretionary *creation* of the police power, I don't know what to tell you.

> It's normally called a "registration".

Yes, and there is a very good reason for that.

- Kevin