Rights are only inherent if we agree they are inherent.
Let's look at that:
You're saying that rights arise from our agreement. But if they come from our agreement, then the origin of the rights is with us, the individuals. So rights can only come from agreement if they reside originally with the individual.
Thus rights are inherent.
You can't get anything out of a group that isn't already present in the individuals.
Besides that, your argument can be taken to mean "might makes right" -- unless you mean unanimous agreement. But if unanimous agreement is required to establish rights, it should be required also to establish laws. If you don't mean unanimous agreement, then you're left with no rights at all, because the majority can say anything at all -- like, gays have to register with the government, and post a pink triangle on their front doors, and....
So what it comes down to is that either rights are inherent in individuals, or there aren't any rights, just majority power.
Many rights have come and gone and thus are not static.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights...."
Rights come with creation, i.e. birth. Everybody has them, the same ones. They only "go" at death.
Rights are all corollaries of the self-evident truth "You own yourself". I can speak as I please, because I own myself; I can worship as I please, because I own myself; I can associate with whom I please, because I own myself; I can defend myself with the means of my choice, because I own myself -- and so on.
If you want to argue that any right at all can end, then you are claiming that I do not own myself, but am the property of someone else -- apparently, from your foundation of "agreement", the majority. That's what pure democracy does; it gives rights to the majority, and everyone else is property.
And yes if one wants a civil union they need to apply for one, it isn't gonna just appear out of thin air. Riddle me this batman: if a husband has 2 legal wives, gets in an accident and is on life support, one wife wants him to stay on, the other wants him off, who gets her way? If six people are legally married and by your ultra liberal ideals are able to adopt a child, what happens if say three of them divorce from the group. Is the child then suppose to be split now between 4 parties?
A bit of history: for people of wealth, especially nobles, there used to be things called "marriage contracts", which spelled out all the obligations, commitments, etc.
So the answer to all your questions is, "Whatever the marriage contract says".
Actually, in cultures where polygamy is approved, these things are already known.
"Ultra liberal ideals"? Classical liberal, yes -- so I thank you for the compliment. See, classical liberalism says that all humans are free individuals, and I subscribe to that whole-heartedly.
But by that measure, there's no such thing as "ultra-liberal" -- there's liberal, and there's authoritarian, and that's it. Either individuals have rights, and those rights are theirs, because they are inherent, or individuals are property, and have only privileges.
The implications of legalized group civil unions are not only immoral but are impractical. And plz show me any evidence that freedom of association has anything to do with marriage or gay marriage. As you argue it it seems a purely subjective interpretation. Is there any speech or statement quoted of the founders saying association meant marriage, gay marriage or group marriage?
"Immoral"?
By what standard? The only standard universally accessible by rational beings is that of self-ownership, i.e. freedom. Thus whatever any any competent individuals agree to amongst themselves -- what we call "mutually consenting" -- is moral.
1. Freedom of association -- I presume you read the Wiki statement -- means that any given person is
free to
associate with any other person or persons he or she so chooses, in whatever way those individuals may agree on.
2. Marriage is a form of association between individuals.
3. Therefore, marriage is a matter of freedom of association.
I've already quoted the most pertinent and well-known statement from the Founders, namely that "all men are created equal", etc. I have to ask, though, why -- if you think that rights come from our agreement -- what the Founders had to say is important to you? In many places the Founders and Framers both made plain that their conviction (and logical conclusion) was that rights come from being human beings.
After that, seeing that marriage is a matter of freedom of association is just dictionary exercise, a matter of definitions.
Also, how do you resolve group property in a group marriage if say one of them leaves. Laws need to make sense and be practical and enforceable and in the best interest of society.
Remember first of all that "society" is a myth, a mental construct we use to refer to a large collection of individuals. Logically, nothing can benefit society if it in any way harms individuals: the rights of the many are no different than the rights of the one.
The function of the law is to protect the rights of individuals. In the matter of freedom of association -- of individuals getting together in ways they find pleasing and beneficial -- and law which bars any form of association, or grants benefits and privileges to some who engage in a certain form of association, but not to others, is immoral. An immoral law is not valid, so the first concern of any law is that it be moral. In this case, association, the law must not in any way limit the freedom of individuals to associate as they please, and must grant the same benefits and privileges to all who associate in a given way.
So to answer your question, it's the same as above: however the marriage contract says. And this is a matter for contract, not for law, because the contract is the mode of definition of relationships between individuals, garnering its authority from their self-ownership and not from any State or society. For the law to endeavor to describe, in any event, all the possible ways in which individuals might choose to associate, would be futile -- besides impractical.
It seems to me that maybe you're suffering from the impression that because government has laws about a thing, that government is the origin of the thing, and the source of its authority. That is erroneous: government derives its authority "from the just consent of the governed", and has no power or authority to initiate anything at all, but only to regulate things which arise from the individuals which have consented to it, or to exercise on behalf of individuals duties delegated to it.
