A right to marry?

I heard an interesting statement recently. It was this: "Gays don't have a right to marry because heterosexuals don't have a right to marry". I was stunned. I'd never heard this before. In fact, it hadn't even occurred to me. So... I did what I always do when confronted with something like this. I researched it a bit until I could reconcile what seemed like an obviously asinine statement. As it turns out, it isn't so asinine after all. Homosexuals claim a right to marry for two reasons that I've heard. One, they should have the same "right" that heterosexuals do and two, that they should be allowed to marry because they love each other, just like heterosexuals do. Okay, this actually seemed to make some sense to me for a while. However, let's look at it, really. Does love give you a right to marry? After all, we don't allow pedophiles who "love" children to marry them. We don't allow men who love multiple women to marry more than one of them. We don't allow a man/woman to marry their pet because they love them. In fact, the idea of a right to marry existing because of love turns out to be ridiculous. Now onto the other point. Do heterosexuals have a "right" to marry?! A constitutional right is something guaranteed to all of us. However, we don't have a right because the constitution says so. The government is set up to protect and ensure our unalienable rights. These rights are those that we have simply by existing. The Declaration of Independence referred to three of them, the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So, does marriage exist as a right? If it does, then the government is constitutionally obligated to protect that right and ensure we all can exercise said right. In fact, if somebody wanted to marry, but was unable to find anyone who wanted to marry them, then they could use the legal system and the courts in order to gain their right. After all, it is their right. So, they have a right to marry and a court confirms that right. Now what? After all, nobody wants to marry them. However, they have that right. They must be allowed to marry and the government must guarantee it. Now we are stuck in a circular argument since nobody wants to marry them. That leaves us with one of two options. Either they don't have a right to marry or the government must protect that right, thereby forcing someone to marry them. If someone is forced to marry them, then the government has failed in protecting the other person's unalienable rights to life (it isn't your own life if you can't choose who you want to marry), liberty (you are enslaved in a forced marriage) and pursuit of happiness (would you be happy in this case?). Since we know these three things are unalienable right and we have no such circular argument conundrums with them, that should tell us something, shouldn't it. Yes, it should. We should realize that even heterosexuals do not have the "right" to marry. One, a person must first find someone willing to marry them. Two, they must get permission from the government through the issuance of a marriage license. Three, if they want to be married in a certain religion, they must find someone within that faith group willing to marry them. These are all things dependent on the choices of others, not something that we can claim a right to. So, what is the governments role in marriage. Well, it requires a license, often blood tests. There are social as well as tax benefits involved in marriage as legally established by the government. However, traditionally, marriages have been performed not by governments, but by churches and in fact, many argue that marriage is initially an institution of the church or God and not one of government, or man. Regardless of which it is, the government has set down a legal standard for marriage and in the U.S., that standard must be sympathetic to religious institutions, otherwise, you risk violating another unalienable right to freedom of exercise. In fact, you even risk the freedom from establishment since any definition of marriage on the part of the government would actually dictate to the church what they can and can't do. So, I submit that we should all stop trying to define marriage in a legal sense and instead deal with it this way. The government can give people whatever legal privileges they desire, whether they want to marry their dog, a same sex partner, or an opposite sex partner, as long as the two involved in the marriage transaction (it is really a contract after all) can find some church to marry them. Good luck with that. Oh, you say, what about justices of the peace. Well, those are really civil contracts with a word attached to them, aren't they? After all, you've chosen to use the states legal privileges and forego the religious ceremonies. I submit under my argument above that these are all civil unions, not marriages. After all, marriages are performed as part of a religious act or ritual. The government cannot provide such a ritual, so, all "marriages" performed in a civil event in front of a judge and not a clergyman are in fact civil unions. So, I guess I'd say two things here. One, the "right" to marry does not exist and therefore, those arguing their rights are being violated have no standing and two, the government can do what it wants to in this arena as long as it doesn't interfere with religion. Therefore, the government can choose to give civil privileges to whomever they want. So, in a nutshell, marriages are for religions and civil unions are for civil authorities.