• 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
ttwtt78640 said:
Good point, as it still leaves the constitution as the final word in federal law. Marraige is, and should continue to be, an issue of state law. Federal law and other states must honor the marraige contract of any state. It would be interesting to see if the existance of a 'civil union' contract could be required to be 'equated' to marriage, if so then polygamy is right around the corner.
Click to expand...

So you agree that if a same sex couple travels to a state where it is legal and gets married, then that marriage should be recognized in all other states. Right?
This would kill all of those state amendments making it illegal.
 
Henrin said:
Marriage is a government contract. All this civil rights nonsense needs to stop.
Click to expand...

And government contracts must adhere the EPC of the 14th Amendment. That means the states must show an important state interest in denying people a right to marriage based on their relative sexes.
 
roguenuke said:
That is not how the SC sees it. If it was, then many things would never be overturned by the SCOTUS.

The 14th Amendment's EPC applies to state laws. This has been ruled on multiple times, including in Loving v VA and Reed v Reed. The state has to prove their interest in making laws, even those approved by the majority of the state's citizens. The Constitution is in place to try to prevent the government, including now state governments, from trampling the rights of its citizens because the majority wants to do so.
Click to expand...

So, for hundreds of years, the marriage "definition" has been wrong and 'discriminatory'? Only now do "wise" judges see this? How do these "wise" judges see polygamy? The constitution lists (enumerates) federal powers as well, yet you see no compelling reason to stay within them if a "wise" judge finds "harm" in doing so. The SCOTUS did not overturn "slavery", clearly a moral wrong and civil rights violation of the greatest possible magnitude (allowing people to be the property of others), it took constitutional action (and a war) to settle that "legal" matter, not the mere dictate of the SCOUTS.
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
The will of the people through their votes and actions of the state legisalture are no longer to be considered? Only a wise judge may have the final word? Does that judge now have the power to decide that the constitution need not specifically address these things, to make them become federal powers? This 'logic' gives the federal gov't, actually only the judical branch of it, supreme power over ALL legal issues, without that pesky need to refer to the acual words of our constitution. In other words, if a wise judge, does not see "interest" in the law it is nullified or amended to fit the "interest" of only that judge?
Click to expand...

Not when that will violates the US Constitution. The majority of this country wanted interracial marriage bans to remain in place.

I like having a system of checks and balances. The SC is an important part of that system. Just because you disagree with them striking down unconstitutional laws, doesn't make them wrong. Honestly, there have been decisions I don't agree with the SC on, but that doesn't mean that they are some supreme power. Future court decisions or even changing the scope of a law or even just having enough support for a Constitutional Amendment are all ways to overturn SC decisions. If you are unable to get do one of these things, then obviously it isn't just the Justices who believe in how they ruled.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Good point, as it still leaves the constitution as the final word in federal law. Marraige is, and should continue to be, an issue of state law. Federal law and other states must honor the marraige contract of any state. It would be interesting to see if the existance of a 'civil union' contract could be required to be 'equated' to marriage, if so then polygamy is right around the corner.
Click to expand...

Why does everyone keep bringing up same sex civil unions? We already have legal same sex marriage in multiple states. Once DOMA goes down and the FF&CC is restored, same sex marriage will have to be legally recognized in every state in the US. Otherwise, there will be even more lawsuits.

That is assuming that the Prop 8 case doesn't strike down state level same sex marriage bans anyway.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
So, for hundreds of years, the marriage "definition" has been wrong and 'discriminatory'? Only now do "wise" judges see this? How do these "wise" judges see polygamy? The constitution lists (enumerates) federal powers as well, yet you see no compelling reason to stay within them if a "wise" judge finds "harm" in doing so. The SCOTUS did not overturn "slavery", clearly a moral wrong and civil rights violation of the greatest possible magnitude (allowing people to be the property of others), it took constitutional action (and a war) to settle that "legal" matter, not the mere dictate of the SCOUTS.
Click to expand...

Yes. Just like for hundreds of years interracial marriage bans were wrong and discriminatory. It took several SCOTUS decisions to overturn interracial marriage bans. SC Justices are still human, still fallible. On many issues, it is easy to tell when the SC decision is the right one. People go on with their lives and support for the decision continually increases over time until it reaches a point where it absolutely could be enshrined in the Constitution just for the hell of it.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That is the priamary reason for the constitution, to say what is (and what is not) a federal power. Marraige is NOT mentioned in the constitution, therefore it is a state issue. The constitution is clear on the matter of race, it may not be used to ban entering into a contract, however gender is not seen as 'equally' protected, as we may still have 'separate but equal' things based on gender.
Click to expand...

And the 14th Amendment applied the US Constitution to state governments as well. We realized that it was stupid to limit the federal government from stepping on the rights of the people but still allow states to step on those rights.
 
roguenuke said:
And government contracts must adhere the EPC of the 14th Amendment. That means the states must show an important state interest in denying people a right to marriage based on their relative sexes.
Click to expand...

What compelling state interest allows charging a citizen $140 to keep their right to carry a handgun (a constitutional right)?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
So, for hundreds of years, the marriage "definition" has been wrong and 'discriminatory'? Only now do "wise" judges see this? How do these "wise" judges see polygamy? The constitution lists (enumerates) federal powers as well, yet you see no compelling reason to stay within them if a "wise" judge finds "harm" in doing so. The SCOTUS did not overturn "slavery", clearly a moral wrong and civil rights violation of the greatest possible magnitude (allowing people to be the property of others), it took constitutional action (and a war) to settle that "legal" matter, not the mere dictate of the SCOUTS.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be the first time that the definition of marriage has been ruled wrong and discriminatory. Loving vs Virginia.
 
roguenuke said:
And the 14th Amendment applied the US Constitution to state governments as well. We realized that it was stupid to limit the federal government from stepping on the rights of the people but still allow states to step on those rights.
Click to expand...

What about the 10th amendment that specifically gives the states power to do what the federal gov't may not? The constitution gives the federal gov't certain specified powers, leaving all others to the states or granting them to the people directly (prohibing either the federal or state gov't from limitting them). Marraige is NOT a right of the people, it is a right of the state, confered as a privilege, after meeting the state conditions and paying a fee, only to the approved people. You have no more of a right to be married than to drive a car, only that once being married, the state can not revoke/suspend that permit as easily as a driver's license.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
So marriage is needed for such thing? I really don't care if you are married or if you are a military spouse, btw
Click to expand...

What is the alternative? I had to get married in order to put my wife on my orders. Should I be able to just put whoever I want on my orders? Keep in mind that the US government will spend tens of thousands of dollars on moving whoever is on my orders from assignment to assignment.

Also, my wife was a foreign national. We had to get married in order for her to obtain resident status and be able to live in the coutnry with me. What alternative would you recommend?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
What compelling state interest allows charging a citizen $140 to keep their right to carry a handgun (a constitutional right)?
Click to expand...

Challenge the damn law. Personally I am very pro-2nd Amendment, but since I currently don't own a gun, the law also doesn't apply to me.

You seem to have a problem with understanding how constitutional challenges work. I'm all for challenging unreasonable gun laws over and over again. Go for it. But that has nothing to do with the current challenges actually at the SC level dealing with ssm. The state has an obligation in showing what state interest it is upholding in those bans.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
What about the 10th amendment that specifically gives the states power to do what the federal gov't may not? The constitution gives the federal gov't certain specified powers, leaving all others to the states or granting them to the people directly (prohibing either the federal or state gov't from limitting them).
Click to expand...

The 14th Amendment trumps the 10th when it comes to EP. That is the reason we no longer have segregation or interracial marriage bans.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Oh really? Then please explain constitutionally "separate but equal" for gender specific restrooms, prison cells, sports and military physical fitness standards, yet NOT for race.
Click to expand...

If it had been left up to the states, we would still have race specific restrooms, and restaurants, and hotels, and just about everything else in at least one section of the country.
 
roguenuke said:
The 14th Amendment trumps the 10th when it comes to EP. That is the reason we no longer have segregation or interracial marriage bans.
Click to expand...

Yet both segregation and inter-racial marriage bans survived the enactment of the 14th Amendment by about a hundred years.
 
Wiggen said:
Yet both segregation and inter-racial marriage bans survived the enactment of the 14th Amendment by about a hundred years.
Click to expand...

True, but we have since then rectified that situation, which in turn has opened our eyes to other things that could be discriminatory and increased our understanding of why things are discriminatory and why they should or should not still be in place.

Many of the earlier court decisions, even some of the SC, had references to God in their reasoning. We have certainly come to realize that this is not a valid reason for upholding any law, at least at the level of our highest courts. Even attorneys now days are highly unlikely to invoke God or religion as a reason for keeping a law in place. That may be the underlying reason for the law to be in place, but they will attempt to rationalize that through much more secular reasoning.
 
Kal'Stang said:
It wouldn't be the first time that the definition of marriage has been ruled wrong and discriminatory. Loving vs Virginia.
Click to expand...

OK, you now attempt to equate race and gender, so what of ALL 'separate but equal' laws based on gender? You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. Is title 9 now invalid for college sports? Should we boycott the olympics? Should we strike gender restrictions for the military? Should we outlaw 'separate' restrooms and prison cells for women/men?
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
OK, you now attempt to equate race and gender, so what of ALL 'separate but equal' laws based on gender?
Click to expand...

Both race and gender are protected under the 14th Amendment's EPC. They may not be at the same level of scrutiny but they still are protected.

And the existence of some laws that separate the genders does not invalidate that same sex marriage violates the EPC. The state still needs some state interest in only limiting marriage on the basis of race, within the confines of the current argues being used for same sex marriage bans.
 
Wiggen said:
Yet both segregation and inter-racial marriage bans survived the enactment of the 14th Amendment by about a hundred years.
Click to expand...

OK, you now attempt to equate race and gender, so what of ALL 'separate but equal' laws based on gender? You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. Is title 9 now invalid for college sports? Should we boycott the olympics? Should we strike gender restrictions for the military? Should we outlaw 'separate' restrooms and prison cells for women/men?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
What about the 10th amendment that specifically gives the states power to do what the federal gov't may not? The constitution gives the federal gov't certain specified powers, leaving all others to the states or granting them to the people directly (prohibing either the federal or state gov't from limitting them). Marraige is NOT a right of the people, it is a right of the state, confered as a privilege, after meeting the state conditions and paying a fee, only to the approved people. You have no more of a right to be married than to drive a car, only that once being married, the state can not revoke/suspend that permit as easily as a driver's license.
Click to expand...

Look at the 9th Amendment also...

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

This means that there are rights held by the people which the Constitution does not enumerate. So, just because something is not in the Constitution does not mean that there is no fundemental right to, in this case, marry.

And SCOTUS has ruled previously that marriage IS a fundemental Right. Once marriage got that designation then it was no longer just a states rights issue. It became a constitutional issue as well.
 
roguenuke said:
Both race and gender are protected under the 14th Amendment's EPC. They may not be at the same level of scrutiny but they still are protected.

And the existence of some laws that separate the genders does not invalidate that same sex marriage violates the EPC. The state still needs some state interest in only limiting marriage on the basis of race, within the confines of the current argues being used for same sex marriage bans.
Click to expand...

Clever argument, that they are not the same EXCEPT for marraige laws, how convenient. How about the interest of tradition? What interest, other than tradition, would make polygamy "wrong" or a compelling state interest in keeping it from being a recognized marraige situation? After all, legal polygamy predates legal same sex unions, does it not?
 
Wiggen said:
Yet both segregation and inter-racial marriage bans survived the enactment of the 14th Amendment by about a hundred years.
Click to expand...

One reason for this is bigotry and racism. SCOTUS judges are not infallible.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Clever argument, that they are not the same EXCEPT for marraige laws, how convenient. How about the interest of tradition? What interest, other than tradition, would make polygamy "wrong" or a compelling state interest in keeping it from being a recognized marraige situation? After all, legal polygamy predates same sex unions, does it not?
Click to expand...

They're not the same for many things. Maybe you should check out one of those SC cases I posted earlier, Reed v Reed. That case involved gender/sex discrimination that was ruled unconstitutional by the SC under the EPC. The state had no legitimate state interest in saying that male heirs should be held in a higher regard than female heirs when it came to inheritance from a parent.

Reed v. Reed
 
Kal'Stang said:
Look at the 9th Amendment also...

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

This means that there are rights held by the people which the Constitution does not enumerate. So, just because something is not in the Constitution does not mean that there is no fundemental right to, in this case, marry.

And SCOTUS has ruled previously that marriage IS a fundemental Right. Once marriage got that designation then it was no longer just a states rights issue. It became a constitutional issue as well.
Click to expand...

Rather circular logic there, if marraige is a right of the people then why has the state ANY right to say that my definition (perhaps polygamy) is not valid. If I say that I am "married" to my sister, three good friends and a goat; has the state a right to deny that right (ok, the state can deny my goat, their signature is quite sloppy)?
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
OK, you now attempt to equate race and gender, so what of ALL 'separate but equal' laws based on gender? You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. Is title 9 now invalid for college sports? Should we boycott the olympics? Should we strike gender restrictions for the military? Should we outlaw 'separate' restrooms and prison cells for women/men?
Click to expand...

If there is compelling interest in allowing those things then they should be allowed. Not all rights are absolute. Even the right to free speech is limited. The right to own a gun is limited. Every right that we have is limited in some way shape or form. But those limitations does not mean that those rights do not exist.

So what is the compelling interest in denying SSM?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom