Marriage isn't a civil right

I will be arguing that, with an anthropological perspective on marriage, marriage is a civil right. I thank my opponent for accepting this debate and for bringing his unique perspective to it (and a perspective I might agree with, once I hear more). On to my argument. The anthropological view of marriage [1][2] is more complex and broad than the understanding of marriage may be in any one culture (including our own), thus, it is the primary way a multicultural, rights-based government should view marriage. Marriage is nigh-universal culturally, but takes vastly different forms. Yet, it's effects are generally the same, and from this anthropologists find the basic social purposes behind marriage. Namely, marriage is a way of regulating sex, by socially tolerating it. Because of this, marriage provides: 1. Legitimization of those married. Marriage accords status as an "adult" (which is not to say such status cannot be earned anyway) 2. Legitimization of the involved relationship. Note that "relationship" does not require a romantic relationship--business or political relationships are 3. Legitimization of sex. 4. Legitimization of offspring. Yet, unless there is a characteristic which society is biased against, marriage is usually allowed for couples who do not fit into the marriage ideal (ie, a couple who cannot bear children). This is important. Even those for whom marriage was not designed are generally allowed to enjoy it, because of it's social significance. Marriage is only denied to people with unusual or unfitting characteristics when those characteristics are already discriminated against. This is unfair and unequal treatment. The major point to recognize here is that marriage provides legitimacy. Legitimacy provides acceptance, status (especially status that was otherwise denied because of lack of legitimacy, not to mention status that is being otherwise earned--see #1), self-esteem, as well as (and this is important) removes discrimination/bias. Let's take a moment here to acknowledge that while high status shouldn't be considered a right, civil rights are certainly concerned when status is being suppressed due to discrimination. Let us return to what civil rights actually are: "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." Equal treatment, free of discrimination, based on legally protected characteristics. But isn't it fine to just let people say they're married without conferring them any legal benefits or recognition? The legal benefits aren't the issue exactly, the issue is recognition and equality. Consider the following: In the antebellum South, slaves were not able to legally marry each other. They did, however, perform their own marriage ceremonies and recognized their marriages within their own social groups. Yet outside of their small communities the marriages had no legitimacy, and this extended to their sexual relationships, offspring/familial relationships, status as adults, etc. Once their marriages were afforded equal status as normal marriages, married couples gained these things. Equality is what provides legitimacy. Marriage, in American society, is made legitimate by legal recognition, because American society recognizes its law. In conclusion, for any legally protected characteristic, access to equality in marriage is a civil right. SOURCES 1. http://goo.gl... 2. http://goo.gl...