• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should same-sex marriage be left to the States?

Should same-sex marriage be left to the States?

  • Yes

    Votes: 18 30.0%
  • No

    Votes: 42 70.0%
  • I'm really not sure

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • What's marriage?

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    60
On an ethical level, no. Whether people deserve equality is not a "state issue." It's a civil rights issue. This is like asking whether women being allowed to vote should be a state issue. The states don't get to decide to discriminate against people.

On a practical level, I suspect there is no other way to get a big enough head of steam behind it except to let the states battle it out one-by-one until there's enough support to make a move for nation-wide legislation. And that frustrates me to no end, but it's the truth.
 
We shouldn't vote on civil rights. So, no.
 
No, it shouldn't be left to states any more than any other civil right (meaning never), but the only hope is the SC. I'm not holding my breath for Congress to accomplish anything, even if SSM had 90% support and it was legal in 48 states already. They'd manage to endlessly bicker and filibuster because somehow it'd be an egregious abuse of power to dictate to the 2 holdout states that their citizens deserve equal rights.
 
Civil rights should not be left to the states. Nor should they be dependent on popular vote.
 
I'm willing to bet that this will be decided in the SC. It may not be the first time or even the next few times the issue reaches the SC, but it will eventually happen. I do think it has a high possibility though of being one of these cases waiting just at or right under the SC now though that will take down the state bans.
 
As many others have said, it's a civil rights issue, and I don't believe those should ever be left to the states.
 
Should the issue of slavery be left to the states?

Without the Thirteenth Amendment, it would have to be.

So the answer to the question of the thread is until there is an amendment that says otherwise, the rule of law should be respected, or we don't really have a nation based on law.
 
Until the current federal welfare system that awards unmarried persons by qualifying them for better benefits than married persons which in turn erodes the family unit, I believe the federal control of our social choices should be reduced rather than increased !
 
Without the Thirteenth Amendment, it would have to be.

So the answer to the question of the thread is until there is an amendment that says otherwise, the rule of law should be respected, or we don't really have a nation based on law.

There doesn't need to be a new Amendment to deal with this issue. It is covered by the 14th Amendment, just as interracial marriage was. The only difference is the classification is under sex, or possibly sexuality, instead of race. The SC will end up making the decision on whether there is any reasonable state interest in banning same sex marriage. That is what the states need in order to maintain their bans under the 14th Amendment (of course, if the classification is deemed sex or to be at the intermediate level of scrutiny, then it needs to be an important state interest). The 14th is about equality under the law and trumps the 10th any time the states are not treating people equally unless the states can prove they are doing so within a state interest.

So far, the states have been unable to show a reasonable state interest in banning same sex marriage because either a) their reasoning does not apply to opposite sex couples for the state interest or b) their reasoning is not supported by research. Just having a majority of people support the bans is not enough because if it were, we wouldn't have many of the SC rulings pertaining to the 14th Amendment that we do.
 
Should same-sex marriage be left to the States?

1) If two people are committed to each, not my place to judge them
2) Civil Unions would be my preference instead of the word Marriage
3) States/Counties is a License, not the Federal Government

That being said, the whole idea of needing a License to Marry or form a Union is ridiculous, just another way for a Government to make money, people are not possessions like a dog or a car and should not need a License to show their love to each other.
 
Should the issue of slavery be left to the states?

While hardly a perfect analogy, since slavery contracts had no 'mutual consent' involved, it makes a good point that the answer is definitely YES unless (until?) the constitution is amended to make it a federal power. Just because something may be popular, or is seen as "needed" or "fair" by a judge (or even the majority of the SCOTUS) does not make it into a federal constitutional power.

What we have here is a desire by some to impose a change on the definition of marraige (and by extension family), that makes gender, a key factor in sexual reproduction, no longer "important". If not for that 'minor' issue why should marraige be barred between a biological brother and sister, or even limitted to only one man and one woman (thus allowing polygamy)? The only responsibility of the federal gov't is to honor and enforce the marriage contract granted by each state per the rules (laws) of that state.

Perhaps the better question is why a state marriage contract should alter the federal tax status of anyone. If one were REALLY concerned with "civil rights" then the contractual relationship between people would have no effect on their taxation and all citizens would be treated 'equally' as individuals by the FIT code, regardless of their contractual obligations to each other or how many children (dependents) that they decide to have. Whether you live in a high or low cost area (e.g. NYC vs. rural Texas) should have more bearing on your FIT obligation (as it does on your income and living expenses) than whether you choose to enter into a marriage contract or have children.
 
Last edited:
Should same-sex marriage be left to the States?

I say no. Gay marriage should be banned on the federal level and that includes civil unions, domestic partnerships and any other paper coated terms that closet supporters of gay marriage want to use to sneak in gay marriage. When it comes to certain things saying leave it up to the states is a cop-out.
 
While hardly a perfect analogy, since slavery contracts had no 'mutual consent' involved, it makes a good point that the answer is definitely YES unless (until?) the constitution is amended to make it a federal power. Just because something may be popular, or is seen as "needed" by a judge, does not make it into a federal power. What we have here is a desire by some to impose a change on the definition of marriage (and by extension family), that makes gender, a key factor in sexual reproduction, no longer "important". If not for that 'minor' issue why should marraige be barred btween a biological brother and sister, or even limitted to only one man and one woman (thus allowing polygamy)? The only responsibility of the federal gov't is to honor and enforce the marriage contract granted by each state per the rules (laws) of that state. Perhaps the better question is why a state marriage contract should alter the federal tax status of anyone. If one were REALLY concerned with "civil rights" then the contractual relationship between people would have no effect on their taxation and all citizens would be treated 'equally' as individuals by the FIT code, regardless of their contractual obligations to each other or how many children (dependents) that they decide to have. Whether you live in a high or low cost area (e.g. NYC vs. rural Texas) should have more bearing on your FIT obligation (as it does on your income and living expenses) than whether you choose to enter into a marriage contract or have children.

Marriage has changed throughout history several times. And if the states are not willing to limit opposite sex couples who can't have children from getting married and/or make it harder for those married couples who do have children from getting divorced and/or also "encouraging" those couples who have children outside of marriage to get married, then procreation cannot be deemed as a valid state interest in marriage.

Incestuous sexual relationships are illegal. For both the genetic issues of children and the fact that many involved some form of undue influence beginning prior to age of consent.

If the only obligation the federal government had was to honor and enforce state marriage contracts per state rules, then interracial marriage and convicts getting married would still be banned by some states.

Family receive benefits and rights for just being family. There has to be a way for adults to choose a person to get those rights of family who isn't otherwise entitled to them plus extra for the mere commitment to share their lives, including expenses.
 
Last edited:
1) If two people are committed to each, not my place to judge them
2) Civil Unions would be my preference instead of the word Marriage
3) States/Counties is a License, not the Federal Government

That being said, the whole idea of needing a License to Marry or form a Union is ridiculous, just another way for a Government to make money, people are not possessions like a dog or a car and should not need a License to show their love to each other.

The marraige contract is more about inheritance, joint property, child custody, parental responsibility and tax law than about "love", since falling out of "love" does not, in and of itself, alter or nullify the marriage contract, mutual support obligations for children (or the spouse) or the rights to any joint property.
 
I say no. Gay marriage should be banned on the federal level and that includes civil unions, domestic partnerships and any other paper coated terms that closet supporters of gay marriage want to use to sneak in gay marriage. When it comes to certain things saying leave it up to the states is a cop-out.

There is not enough support for a federal marriage amendment now, which is what would be required to federally ban same sex marriage. And the support for same sex marriage is increasing every day, which means the support for a FMA is decreasing every day.
 
There is not enough support for a federal marriage amendment now, which is what would be required to federally ban same sex marriage. And the support for same sex marriage is increasing every day, which means the support for a FMA is decreasing every day.

I suppose that with all the gay and tranny propaganda being pumped out on ABC,CBS,NBC,FOX and other liberal entertainment channels there will be lots of idiots to support legalizing gay marriage.
 
The marraige contract is more about inheritance, joint property, child custody, parental responsibility and tax law than about "love", since falling out of "love" does not, in and of itself, alter or nullify the marriage contract, mutual support obligations for children (or the spouse) or the rights to any joint property.

The marriage contract is only consistently about family rights and the benefits that go with that within the US at this time. There is no obligation to procreate for those opposite sex couples getting married. And it does not take the ability to procreate to raise children, including having mutual support obligations to those children. Everything you have mentioned pertains to at least some same sex couples and pertains to a very similar percentage if not higher, of opposite sex couples as it does to same sex couples.
 
I suppose that with all the gay and tranny propaganda being pumped out on ABC,CBS,NBC,FOX and other liberal entertainment channels there will be lots of idiots to support legalizing gay marriage.

There are people who realize that our Constitution is important, including treating people equally under the law and not allowing people's unwarranted biases and religious/moral beliefs to be/remain enshrined within our laws.
 
The marraige contract is more about inheritance, joint property, child custody, parental responsibility and tax law than about "love", since falling out of "love" does not, in and of itself, alter or nullify the marriage contract, mutual support obligations for children (or the spouse) or the rights to any joint property.

Very true and I can see the point, but without the License a couple can protect those things with a Will, could they not?

I used the word in love, because that is why most people get married, but yes if they fall out of love it does not nullify the contract :)
 
Last edited:
Very true and I can see the point, but without the License a couple can protect those things with a Will, could they not?

I used the word in love, because that is why most people get married, but yes if fall out of love it does not nullify the contract :)

There are many rights that marriage gives that are not covered by any other current contracts, even in conjunction with each other. Family is held to a certain status by our laws. And spouses are held to a higher level due to the acknowledgement that married couples are offering a level of commitment, enshrined in a legal contract, that says they are willingly taking responsibility for each other financially (at least to a certain degree) and that they are willing to stay together. Stable couples have been shown to be a positive to societies. Even with allowing divorce, marriage provides a form of stability and makes it harder for those within a marriage to leave each other.
 
Back
Top Bottom