Proof? Permission is needed from the state to marry. The state issues a license but before a license is need the act being licensed must be illegal. If marriage was legal, why is permission needed to get married? Why is a license needed?
When the state prohibited marriage then required a license to avoid the illegality they, unwittingly, banned LGBT marriage too. The state didn’t just ban hetero marriage, it banned marriage.
If getting married was a Right the state could not forbid it. A rRght is intrinsic. Something that is part of the nature of an individual. In the words of the Declaration of Independence, Rights are inalienable or unalienable. Both words have the same effect. They cannot be separated from the individual.
That’s playing with words, of course, but the words are important in establishing the limits of Liberty. Some Rights are derived from fundamental Rights. The Right to drive is a derivative of the Right to travel or the Right of Locomotion. Many court decisions validate those Rights. “The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment.” – Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125. “The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”- Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579.
It could not be stated more conclusively that Citizens of the states have a Right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution.
What about the Right To Marry? That’s a derivative Right from the Right to enter into a contract, the Right of Privacy, the Right of Due Process and Common Sense.
In 2013, in United States v Windsor the Supreme Court struck down a provision of the Defense Of Marriage Act, DOMA, because it violated the equal protection principles embodied in the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Justice Scalia, in dissent, criticized the Court for intervening in a matter that should have been left to elected representatives and the people to decide: “The Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers the peace that comes from a fair defeat.’ But Justice Scalia was wrong to kick the can to the legislators. He should have realized that government had no business with marriage.
There are distinct and profound differences between homosexual and heterosexual marriage because there are differences between homo and heterosexuals. There’s no defense needed for homosexual marriage. Nor is there a defense needed for heterosexual marriage. The differences in the names of the different types of marriage prove that differences exist. No one should need permission from anyone or anything to execute a marriage contract between two or more people. How people wish to use their freedom, their rights or their Liberty is no business of the state unless a crime is committed. There’s simply no way to describe a marriage contract as a crime.
But the state does exactly that when it seeks to regulate marriage. It’s time for everyone to study this topic and to realize the State should get out of the marriage business.