Is marriage a civil right?

Marriage is not a civil right.  Or at least that is what Ann Coulter would have you believe.   She expressed her opinion at this year's HomoCon.   Which is in this case a contraction of homosexual with both convention and conservative.   Conservative enough to value the lifestyle of the ancient Greeks.

I couldn't find a transcript or video of her speech (not that I looked for to long) but here is some article on it. It may be based on the speech as described that she was being factious. As far as I know she has not come forward to say so, and I will therefor take her at face(palm) value.

So, anyway.  Her point is that marriage is not a civil right.  OK, well what are civil rights anyway?

According to FindLaw they are as follows;

"Civil rights" are the rights of individuals to receive equal treatment (and to be free from unfair treatment or "discrimination") in a number of settings -- including education, employment, housing, and more -- and based on certain legally-protected characteristics.

  The site seems to make a distinction between civil rights and civil liberties.  I don't really see the need to much address the distinction, as it seems to mainly be semantic.  If you are interested, you can go here.

Ok well then is marriage a civil liberty? Well yes and no, at least by the definition given on findlaw. It says that civil liberties are those guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. And yet marriage does not seem to be listed in the Constitution.

Coulter's other point seems to be that marriage is for procreation.

This site seems to agree with her on the purpose of marriage, but includes some others as well. The benefits of marriage explicitly listed are the following: procreation,  paternity, child support, spousal support, stability in family life, and survivor's rights.

But how many of these are actually a product of marriage?  What I mean is how many of those are either impossible without marriage or more likely to occur because of marriage.      Or is it that we should take these to be the necessary definition of a marriage, without which a marriage cannot be considered valid and with them a relationship must be called a marriage?   That it seems would preclude many current marriages.   What then should we say of the elderly couples that find each other as comfort before the coming night?  And to those younger couples who have yet to conceive, or find themselves either unable or unwilling?  Should we return to the judgement of Aquinas and declare them void if they have not procreative powers?  Should the use of prophylactics then too be illegal, at least for those kept by wedlock? 

From a more legal standpoint we have the 14th Amendment to consider.

Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942) the consenting opinion of the Supreme Court contained in it the following:

"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."

Granted this case was about the forced sterilization of criminals, and views procreative rights as the main issue, but marriage is mentioned as well. So we cannot consider the idea of marriage to be irrelevant under protections provider for by the 14th Amendment.  Specifically this part;  "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

If you wish to read the full argument as presented by the court, you can find it here.

This leaves me with the impression that marriage cannot be denied to citizens.  What then is marriage? In the ancient Celtic tradition, handfasting was a marriage that lasted one year and one day. After this time the couple could go their separate ways or undergo another ceremony.   In the Judeo-Christian tradition it was a contract of property between two men. The chattel of exchange was a women. There also doesn't seem to be a problem with polygamy.  Even the argument that these are no longer the normal tradition in the West and therefor should be dismissed, would discredit the marriage of Hindus and other non Western peoples. 

What then could the arguments be against gay marriage, that do not also apply to some peoples who currently enjoy the privilege ?    They seem to be explicitly religious and do not deserve a place in our secular lives.  If some religious institution wants to deny gay marriages that is within its rights.  But the government must not establish one religion as being better, or more deserving of legal representation than another.  If a religion were to perform gay marriages that would be within it's right.   If marriage is a religious expression then the government has little place in it, if it is a government sanctioned contract then religious sentiments should not overrule equal protection. The best solution might be to outlaw all marriage.   That way there could be no claims for equal protection.  Matrimony could be safely defined by whatever religion the adherents wish and ignored by everyone else.   Leaving all adults with the same legal status and protecting us from having to hear slippery slope arguments about men marrying children and pigs marrying frogs.   It may be said that there are some drawbacks to this idea, such as losing survivor's rights and medical coverage for spouses, but that's what civil unions are for.   

If marriage can be defined by what a certain group thinks they should be why not have a ban on loveless marriages?   That might reduce the cost on society of all those divorce proceedings.   

Marriage is a formal commitment between two people, a commitment to view the interests of each party as equal and to compromise on where they are mutually exclusive. Further this commitment must be entered into freely and without any form of compulsion.  

My own marriage, and those of most people I have met also include sexual exclusivity, and are thought to be life long commitments. This commitment is both emotional and legal.  It is the combination of two separate families into one.   The act creates not only a legal union, but also creates a recognition in those outside the marriage to the seriousness of the relationship. It also affords the relationship protection in cases of death or disease. Your family can exclude your lover from medical and funereal decisions but not your spouse.  

What does this mean for the state of American marriage and the equality of individuals, that we will have to decide for ourselves.