[Fangrim]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint If it's just something the state does, why on Earth would you be defending it? This hardly seems to be the vital socio-cultural institution it has been made out to be -- especially if you are open to abandoning state-recognized marriage altogether. Tell me, why aren't you arguing for that, as a logical solution that would resolve the entire issue while satisfying the desire for equal treatment under the law? What do we gain by keeping marriage as a government sanctioned and exclusive club?

We keep familes as the state-recognized unit of society.
With the decline of marriages comes the decline of the Western nuclear family, and, by extension, the decline of society, since our society is based on families.

I don't argue for the dissolution of state-arbitrated marriages because it sets a ridiculous precedent: that as soon as a minority wants a right to be redefined, the right is instead dissolved to be "fair" for everyone.

And there's the problem again. There are two possibilities, as I see it: the right to marriage has been seen as a fundamental right, equivalent to our right to free speech, our right to bear arms, and so on and so forth; it has been regulated and protected by the government pursuant to the government's stated goal of protecting every man's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If that is the case, then I can follow and even agree with your argument that redefining the right to marry would be a corruption of our constitutional rights.

Even court cases cite marriage as a fundamental right and a building block for society. I'm with the first possibility.
That does not necessitate that all people be able to se that right in the manner that they want to, of course, or that they should redefine it to what they want to.

If, on the other hand, marriage rights are not a fundamental right, do not originate with the government but are only regulated by it, and if they are not part of the government's goals, then there is nothing particularly sacred and immutable about them. If, in addition, marriage rights have been fundamentally defined and redefined to include or disqualify certain groups, then there is precedent for doing so again.

The right to marriage has not been redefined, and there is no precedent for redefining it except by 1) the right to privacy, and 2) states' rights/federal powers.
Both are bastardizations of their respective rights categories.
The right to marry has never been redefined in the United States. It has only been reapplied, and regulated, much like the right to vote.