and there's a tremendous difference between a right and a privilege. take driving for example. if everyone has the right to drive, then why can't everyone just hop into the first car they see and take off? if you want to drive, you have to meet certain conditions in order to be granted that privilege. you have to be of legal driving age, you have to apply (and be approved for) a valid driver's license, you have to have insurance, and you have to own or have permission to use a particular vehicle.
similarly, marriage (for anyone) is a privilege - two consenting individuals of opposite sexes, both of the appropriate age of consent, must apply (and be approved for) a marriage license and unless they choose a civil wedding ceremony with a justice of the peace, they usually have to rent the facilities needed and very frequently are required to complete a certain amount of premarital counseling at or through the faith establishment conducting the ceremony. there's nothing keeping gay people from getting married - they have equal access to follow the procedure to obtain the privilege to marry anyone of the opposite sex they want.
I think what you're saying is that rights are something that everyone has from birth, while privileges are something given to certain people by law. That's not the whole story, though.
Unalienable rights (or natural rights) are rights considered universal. They lay outside any nation's or community's law. I actually question whether those exist, but that's neither here nor there.
Legal rights, on the other hand, "are rights conveyed by a particular polity, codified into legal statutes by some form of legislature (or unenumerated but implied from enumerated rights), and as such are contingent upon local laws, customs, or beliefs." In other words, legal rights are conferred to certain people at certain times by law.
What I'm saying is that what you have defined as privileges could also be called legal rights, and, therefore, rights.
because that's what marriage is defined as in nearly the entire country. wanting anything other than that is wanting something other than marriage - call it whatever you like but quibbling over semantics doesn't really impact reality all that much.
I don't agree with your argument concerning the definition of marriage, but I won't go into it further unless you ask. That would be quibbling over semantics (as I just did...teehee). Suffice it to say that I believe words have impact. Ask any advertising agent or writer.
also, even if legal codes are sufficiently fucked with to allow same-sex marriages, faith establishments retain the right under the free exercise clause of the first amendment to refuse to perform the ceremony. in which case most gay couples would probably need to settle for a civil marriage ceremony.
This has been my argument for a very long time. Religion has little say in the same-sex marriage debate since marriage isn't exclusively religious. Religious groups can refuse to perform ceremonies...and that's about it.
in which case they might as well call it a civil union (which I don't see that big of a problem with) and stop dicking around (heh) with the underpinnings of civilization that have worked quite well for several millennia.
There are
differences between the two. Also, we remove underpinnings all the time. Things change. That's how the world works.
