Alright I recently got in a debate over gay marriage and the right of marriage in general. I was called uneducated etc...etc.. for not believing marriage is a right under the declaration of rights or Canada, USA, Australian Constitutions. However I knew my declaration of rights pretty well and with a nights research realized that not only is marriage not a legal right guaranteed in the Canadian constitution or Declaration of Rights but it isn't in the US Constitution or Bill of Rights either or the Australian ones.

So the question has to be asked, legally and democratically is marriage a right that each and every citizen is entitled to? Also if marriage is a right that each and every citizen is entitled to like how Health Care is in Canada and such then what are the implications on society?

I'll start with my opinion based on the Constitution of Canada, USA and Britian. I do not believe marriage is a right as it has no legal recognition as one. None of our countries have put marriage in their contitutions or rights bills. Their isn't a single country that I know of which believes marriage is a right to all citizens. Am I entitled to the right to get married? If I want to marry another man, animal or object should I have that right? Is it owed to me am I being treated unfairly and not as an equal if I am not given the right to get married to whoever or what ever I want?

In my opinion and the opinion of almost every dictionary prior to 2003. Marriage is a bond both legally and spiritually between a man and women. The definition is explicit marriage is not between two men, two women, a woman/man and an animal or a man/woman and a object. The definition was actually changed in 2004. So was that change nescessary and supported legally by the Constitution or law? I would like to see some legal evidence to support that change in definition and law?

Marriage is a religious ceremony and religious institution. Sure it was recognized by the Government but its basis and grounds are in religion. So what entitles beastiality followers, homosexuals and object fetishers to marriage? Some have argued that their were gay unions back in the Roman and Greek empires. But were those union's marriages recognized by the church,temple etc...etc.. or were they just two men or women living with one another? Also to use those as examples in Greek and Roman times a fifty year old could marry a five year old, does that mean that pedophilia should be legal as well because it was in the Roman/Greek empires?

So thats my opinion on marriage, it is a religious institution between a man and a women before God and there for the law. Not the legal right of any or every citizen, object or animal. My opinion is based on the Constitutions of Canada, US and Australia. So what's your opinion, is Marriage a right that should be guaranteed to all citizens? If so why do you believe that and what are your legal grounds to believe that?

Notice this thread is not about Gay Marriage, it is about whether marriage is a fundamental right legally or democratically.

Also please no flaming, derailing or insulting in this thread. This is not a troll thread it should be a civilized discussion on whether Marriage is a right to all citizens and whether it constitutionally or legally is such. Why do you think marriage is a right?

Marriage is simply a title.

Marriage, a legally binding union between 2 people, is a right of everyone that shouldn't require legislation to regulate.

I don't see laws or national founding documentation making it a right to be able to walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. Some things should just be common sense.

EDIT:
Your poll options are a bit confounding. 

If marriage was simply a Government institution or civil matter then I would agree its common sense. However it is a religious institution who's meaning actually had to be changed to accomodate gays, beastiality and object fetishers. It's pretty insaine to change the definition of a word, force that change on the religious groups who made the word and the institution. Its insaine that its even considered a right.

What about going naked down the street, shouldn't that be my right I mean I'm not hurting anyone and its my free will to wear what I want. That should be a right should it not. Thats common sense isn't it?

In this case changing the definition of a word and then imposing that change on everyone is not a right in my eyes or the Constitution's or rights bills.

Edit. the reason I wrote the poll the way I wrote it is due to people saying Marriage is a Constitutional and Bill of RIghts Right. THe Consitution does however protect religious groups the religious rights act (Canada) which states that people have the freedom to practice their religions free of persecution etc... So forcing Pastors to marry gay couples or animals or objects actually goes against the fundamental beliefs enshrined in the Canadian, American and Australian Constitutions.

As such if you vote that it is a right and that this right should be enforced you are essentially going against the Constitution and Bill of Rights, hence why I placed that in the poll.

It depends on how you define marriage.
In a legal sense, I don't believe it is a right.
In a religious sense, it's just a formality without any real meaning.
In a humanistic sense, it is a right of everyone as long as it doesn't affect others negatively.

Marriage is not a religious ceremony anymore. Sure it used to be but people get married at court houses without ever seeing the inside of a church all the time. The second the government started giving benefits to those who are married over those who aren't it couldn't be a religious thing. If you want it to go back to being a religious institution then I'd be fine with that, we can just take away all the legal benefits that go along with being married and have those relegated to a "union".

As far as if it's a right to get married, while not explicit we in the US specifically have the right to pursue happiness as long as it doesn't hurt others, and getting married falls right in line with that in my mind. So no there is nothing in the constitution that says "you have the right to get married", but there are general terms that would lead one to think you do.

Who said they want to force pastors to marry gay couples?  they don't have to do a damn thing, just don't get in the way of those gays on the way to the court house.  

BTW, marrying a same sex partner and marrying an animal or object are vastly different.  I think that consenting adults should be allowed to get married however they like, but they can't bring in things that don't have the ability to consent (animals, objects, children).

1. Meanings change with time. Religions change with time. There is not definite truth to what is "supposed to be".

2. Marriage is a passive state of being in a sense. Walking down the street naked is an activity which will unavoidably affect anyone in your near environment. If it is not pleasant to others and has no real value, it should not be done. It would be uncomfortable for me to watch a man naked walking down the street, but it would not be uncomfortable to know that two persons are married in an active sense. You may have a personal opinion, but then you could say that people wearing hats disturb you. It's quite a gray area.

3. Definitions of word vary as society moves "forward". The word gay is a great example. Now I will say that you are really gay, because you are happy. Is it not whatgay means?

A religious marriage should have the right of refusal from the presiding religious insitution or pastor/preacher/rabbi, etc...   No religious instution should be forced to marry that which they do not see fit as a marriage. 

But note that I gave the legal usage in my post, not the religious.  And I don't know any marriage laws that allow bestiality.  Do plese show me the law that I may point and laugh. That should be illegal on the grounds the animal is not cognizant of the procedings.  No more so can you marry someone in a comma because they are not cognizant enough to so say I do.  Same with pedophelia.  A child does not comprehend the ramifications of a marriage nor has the physical, mental or psychological capacity for marriage.

All the replies in this thread have been very educative. They're very good arguements.