Marriage is a Civil Right.

1) The pro position states, "In order to determine whether anything rises to the level of a civil right, you have to start by looking how a civil right is defined and who decides whether it meets that definition. " I agree we must define a civil right before we can debate whether marriage is a civil right; however, the partial definition my opponent provides does not give a full account. 1A) I do not have free access to Black's Law Dictionary as my copy is loaned out at the moment, and I cannot get to the law library within the next three days due to work. I ask my opponent to put the full definition forward. If the space limit is an issue, please put the full definition in the comments for this debate. 1B) My opponent cites the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Found here: . http://www.hrweb.org... and posits the covenant defines a civil right as, "one that derives from the inherent dignity of the human person. " The closest wording I found to this direct quote is in the Preamble. The covenant is large, but I did not find this exact quote so I will go from the closest possible from this document: "Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, Recognizing that these rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person," Legal documents must be designed to give people headaches and this one is no different. A careful reading shows the document conveys: We agree that recognition of the equal and inalienable rights of humans, derived from inherent dignity, is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world. A definition is not directly provided but many rights are listed, and civil rights are included in this listing. The document further conveys these separate rights: civil, political, economic, social and cultural, but never provides a definition for any of the terms. (see preamble) It does list a litany of rights but does not describe which is civil or otherwise. The document appears to consider all the rights listed as derived from the inherent dignity of the human person and, marriage is listed specifically: Article 23 The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized. No marriage shall be entered into without the free and full consent of the intending spouses. States Parties to the present Covenant shall take appropriate steps to ensure equally of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. In the case of dissolution, provision shall be made for the necessary protection of any children. According to my opponent's source the right to marry is derived from the inherent dignity of the human person. If this quality is the only one needed for a right to be a civil right, then the pro position cannot stand. 2) My opponent lists three points as to why marriage is not a civil right. I will address them in order along with her explanations. 2A) My opponent does not list source material for any of the contentions in this point, but I do agree that marriage is defined differently throughout the world, but this in no way prevents marriage from being a civil right, this simply means that marriage is not universally defined. My opponent appears to further the definition of a civil right to mean a universally agreed upon right, but I can find nothing to support such a restrictive definition to a civil right. My opponent offers the right to remain free of bodily harm as a universally agreed upon right, but this is not true as female genital mutilation is bodily harm and is sanctioned in many countries and by religious leaders. I can think of no right that is universally accepted across all cultures and creeds, so according to my opponent's reasoning, the absence of universal acceptance means no civil rights exist, marriage notwithstanding. I cannot accept this restrictive definition. 2B)My opponent gives examples of civil rights violations, but violating a civil right does not remove its status as a civil right. The document my opponent cited does agree marriage is inherently derived and specifically addresses forced marriage as a violation of the inherently derived right to marry. My opponent's source contradicts this contention. 3B) Agreed, some rights are not civil rights per se, but if the right unjustly discriminates against some citizens then we have a civil rights violation. Violating a civil right does not remove the right from the status as a civil right. Conclusion: A civil right must be a right against unjust discrimination by a ruling body, or a body claiming authority. The right to vote is a Constitutional right. The inability of the government to arbitrarily deny the Constitutional right to vote based on race, sex, creed, etc is a civil right. The UN document further conveys the right to marry in the above mentioned covenant provided by my opponent. At this point, I conclude marriage, as defined by a ruling body without arbitrary distinctions, is a civil right.