There's a big problem with this idea, and that is that you don't choose the state (or country) where you are born and grow up. For the first two decades of your life, you're likely going to be completely unable to do anything about living in a state or country that doesn't tolerate you - either you are dependent on your parents, or on your job, or on any other factors that might keep you somewhere, out of your own control. Moving to a different place often isn't a matter of just hopping into a car, plus the whole host of other issues with linking policy/legislation to land mass (which, frankly, is a retarded idea to begin with).
This is why there are such things as human rights conventions - to ensure that no matter where you are born, a minimum level of living standards and social tolerance is guaranteed. And this kind of acceptance certainly falls into that category. Frankly, it's just a matter of human decency.
The country boundary concept and the limitations, especially today being stuck in said place I fully understand. Ask the Palestinians in Gaza about borders and being cooped up like chickens and made to jump and do whatever upon command (oh another hot button topic). Same applies to residents of the 50 individual United States who today might want to migrate elsewhere as their ancestors did, but in no shape or form can. Perhaps the Native American would like to ride his horse to town as his people did for eons. How well does the government accept this? Barely at best and often with conflict. I do agree that this locking people into land mass by force and declaring them Citizens by force and limiting their ability to come and go is barbaric. Even the cost and rubbish process these days for passport can be challenging to folks of limited means (which is most people).
There has to be nation states until some evolution of humanity happens. Otherwise some wimpy idealistics would get run over by marauding masses from afar who would divide the idealistics from their life, liberty and possessions. This is sort of the scenario we have in growing list of countries and where the US gets called in to be the US bully military brunt ( I shall not go shame naming these little twerps).
People deserve the right to be left alone, even if their ideas originated in pre-historic times.
linking policy/legislation to land mass and said people is part of this. Or identities shall be lost and history shall be forgotten (and usually repeated) for the fashionable short-lived pursuits of the modern youth.
Relating to human rights, yes I agree. But calling acceptance a right is where it breaks down as many things through the legal view of government go awry isn't ahh right. I think most people are tolerant and just don't want to be socially submerged in what they deem degenerate behavior, which their beliefs warn of. To victimize people due to their gay sexual preferences is unacceptable. But where is the line? Do we say all sexuality is a right and being against it is discrimination? Who am I to be so liberal as to blindly not care if man lays with man or man lays with beast? I say I don't care, but I see where this all leads to and that's not a good path for society. We had not that many moons ago MABLA (sp?) the man-boy sex cultists pushing force of law to legitimate their naughty behavior. Eventually they'll be back with hybrid arguments that everything under the sun just is natural. To some extent it is, some fringe of society always has deviated into fringe.
To chop up marriage and mock the whole institution of it is something churches and other centers of belief should have been after for a long time. Government has ZERO legitimate reason to be in such. Marriage isn't a task of government. Church folks lost this argument eons ago (1950's) by allowing their institutions (especially in the US) to be lorded over by the IRS via then new 501©(?) regulations about non-profits and churches. They failed to tell government to go to hell and get out of the temple, so they must suffer for their inaction.
This is why there are such things as human rights conventions - to ensure that no matter where you are born, a minimum level of living standards and social tolerance is guaranteed. And this kind of acceptance certainly falls into that category. Frankly, it's just a matter of human decency.
I agree with basic human rights, but unsure what at convention prior was spelled out. Who one contracts with is basically the crux of the debate. Civil marriages via government are the matter. Can people contract together and involve the government in their contracting. There exists inherently the right to enter contracts and surely should be covered in human rights guarantees for civilized people. Government as-is is violating everything though conceptually. They should deny no marriage license for anyone to marry any thing be it human, non human, inanimate object or figment of their imagination, because in essence governments role is as a record keeper of contracts for people who may I say are delusional.