• 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
Lightning said:
I'd like for you to point out where in our Constitution there is a clause that says marriage is a right...thought so.
Click to expand...

I agree. Too many want the constitutional "interpretation" by a SCOTUS decision to essentially replace the need for any constitutional amendment. Why constitutional amendment to outlaw poll taxes (via the 24th amendment) was required, yet not for voter "literacy" tests is beyond me. Perhaps that is why "gun permits" or "CCW permits" are somehow deemed constitutional (what part of "shall not be infringed" does not apply to a state renting your constitutional right, to keep and bear arms, back to you for a fee?) yet showing a state issued photo ID to vote (only once and only as yourself) is legal, only in certain states, without advance approval from the federl gov't based on the "voting rights act" in the "bad" states, but perfectly acceptable in the "good" states (is that equal protection under the law?).
 
Last edited:
Lightning said:
Uhmmm...no it hasn't. Again roguenuke, you have no understanding of legal precedents. You're trying to use a limited precedent set to destroy the discrimination of interracial marriages, and apply it to sexual tastes...again.
Click to expand...

Sexuality is not about sex. It is about intimate relationships, just as interracial marriage is.

Marriage was ruled to be a constitutional right. Even if it wasn't, being a government endorsed institution means that it has to conform to the EPC of the 14th. I guarantee that the 14th and/or the EPC will be mentioned in the SC ruling that overturns same sex marriage bans.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I agree and that also goes for polygamy, should a state decide to add that as a legal form of marraige. The only disagreement, that I have with some here, is that a federal standard is OK because they think it fair, even if the constituion does not give the federal gov't the power to define marraige. Some have used the SCOTUS denying of state racial mix restrictions on marraige to imply that a federal (court?) power over state marraige gender restrictions exists as well, in effect, forcing all states to drop it and making SSM a nationwide "right" if the SCOTUS thinks it "fair".
Click to expand...

Well, yes and no. The only legitimate concern that government has with marriage are the legal questions, such as property rights, inheritance rights, etc. Gay marriage requires no changes in the existing laws to institute. Polygamy, however, does require massive changes and as such, before we institute polygamy, we need to consider the legal ramifications. I've got no problem with polygamy, I just don't want to see the courts clogged up with polygamist divorces, etc. before we've had a chance to consider how to handle it.
 
roguenuke said:
Sexuality is not about sex. It is about intimate relationships, just as interracial marriage is.

Marriage was ruled to be a constitutional right. Even if it wasn't, being a government endorsed institution means that it has to conform to the EPC of the 14th. I guarantee that the 14th and/or the EPC will be mentioned in the SC ruling that overturns same sex marriage bans.
Click to expand...

If that is the case then what is so sacred about marraige applying to only two partners? Polygamy preceeded same sex marraige and is much more popular among many religions. Is it not prohibiting the free exercise of religion to restrict marraige to only one spouse? You seem to imply that a law that simply does not include something is, in effect, a ban on it. Using that logic polygamy is banned as well. It is very different to strike down a law as unconstitional, than to require adding provisions to it. SSM, like polygamy, simply not being a privilege granted by a given state is not the same as a ban on it. If MS would not accept a SSM granted legally in VT then that may be a constituional issue, but MS is not violating the rights of anyone by not offering SSM in their state. Many states have differing laws, simply because CA allows medical marijuana does not mean that TX must also do so. Even though federal prohibition of alcohol was repealed does not compel every state, county and city to allow it.
 
Last edited:
let's say that we had a Conservative administration and a solidly Conservative SCOTUS.

with that situation, would you STILL want SSM to be left to the Feds?

cause if we did, the Feds might strike down SSM.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
If that is the case then what is so sacred about marraige applying to only two partners? Polygamy preceeded same sex marraige and is much more popular among many religions. Is it not prohibiting the free exercise of religion to restrict marraige to only one spouse?
Click to expand...

Because the rules of marriage only allow for two people to be involved legally.

I'm not against some legal institution to be available, even called marriage for those who want multiple partners, but it will be at least partially different from marriage. It is only logical that it has to be.
 
Thunder said:
let's say that we had a Conservative administration and a solidly Conservative SCOTUS.

with that situation, would you STILL want SSM to be left to the Feds?

cause if we did, the Feds might strike down SSM.
Click to expand...

And it would still keep coming back to them over and over again until they got it right (or all the states allowed it). It is not reasonable to assume that we would always have an all conservative court that all considered same sex marriage bans constitutional.
 
Cephus said:
Well, yes and no. The only legitimate concern that government has with marriage are the legal questions, such as property rights, inheritance rights, etc. Gay marriage requires no changes in the existing laws to institute. Polygamy, however, does require massive changes and as such, before we institute polygamy, we need to consider the legal ramifications. I've got no problem with polygamy, I just don't want to see the courts clogged up with polygamist divorces, etc. before we've had a chance to consider how to handle it.
Click to expand...

That side-steps the issue. Is marraige a state or federal matter? Currently it is a state matter but many wish to make it a federal matter simply by a SCOTUS edict that gender discrimination is involved, prohibiting SS couples from participating. That is a dangerous path to go down as next that may be said for title 9 as well, if a school must provide equal athletic slots for men and women does it then need equal allocation based on race and orientation as well? If a man can be a wife, may they not also be a 'female' athlete? Equal protection can be said to mean proportional representation as has been tried with 'title 9' and 'affirmative action' nonsense in the past. We are fast approaching a point at which constitutional power may be granted without the need for any amendments, simply by inferring or 'interpreting' one thing to apply to another. The federal gov't has no business in saying that the state marraige of one man to one woman agreement, just as the federal title 9 school athletic requirement is, is wrong.
 
roguenuke said:
Because the rules of marriage only allow for two people to be involved legally.

I'm not against some legal institution to be available, even called marriage for those who want multiple partners, but it will be at least partially different from marriage. It is only logical that it has to be.
Click to expand...

Marraige is a state matter. So marraige, to you, means two, and only two, partners but they now MUST be of any gender? We seem to have little trouble with business partnerships involving more than two partners. Let us just keep marraige as a state power and let life go on. The rush to federalize all aspects of law is neither needed nor wanted, that is why we have a constitution (to limit federal and state gov't power), amend it if you can, but do not ignore it or try to use the SCOTUS to 'interpret' it away.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That side-steps the issue. Is marraige a state or federal matter? Currently it is a state matter but many wish to make it a federal matter simply by a SCOTUS edict that gender discrimination is involved, prohibiting SS couples from participating. That is a dangerous path to go down as next that may be said for title 9 as well, if a school must provide equal athletic slots for men and women does it then need equal allocation based on race and orientation as well? If a man can be a wife, may they not also be a 'female' athlete? Equal protection can be said to mean proportional representation as has been tried with 'title 9' and 'affirmative action' nonsense in the past. We are fast approaching a point at which constitutional power may be granted without the need for any amendments, simply by inferring or 'interpreting' one thing to apply to another. The federal gov't has no business in saying that the state marraige of one man to one woman agreement, just as the federal title 9 school athletic requirement is, is wrong.
Click to expand...

What you are failing to grasp is state matters still must adhere to the US Constitution, particularly the 14th Amendment's EPC in this case.

No one but you is talking about the Title 9 requirement. If you have an issue with it, bring it to the court and argue your case. Same sex marriage bans, both the federal and state level bans, are at or will soon be at the SC level. It is highly likely that first, DOMA will be struck down and then state same sex marriage bans will be struck down. Like it or not, both are unconstitutional.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Actually it is a good one, because that took constitutional amendment to 'resolve', not a mere act of congress or the opinion of an "activist" judge.
Click to expand...

My point exactly. Civil rights issues should not be left to the state and really shouldn't need a constitutional ammendment but it needs to be one way or another on the federal level.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Marraige is a state matter. So marraige, to you, means two, and only two, partners but they now MUST be of any gender? We seem to have little trouble with business partnerships involving more than two partners. Let us just keep marraige as a state power and let life go on. The rush to federalize all aspects of law is neither needed nor wanted, that is why we have a constitution (to limit federal and state gov't power), amend it if you can, but do not ignore it or try to use the SCOTUS to 'interpret' it away.
Click to expand...

Because business partnerships do not involved rights to things like end of life decisions as a part of the contract. Business partnerships do not include custodial arrangements for children that become a part of the relationship. Business partnerships do not include rights to things such as military base access and dependent benefits.

Marriage makes people legal family. I am for an arrangement to allow a person to have multiple spouses with one designated as the primary decision maker for each of the others. But the potential legal issues need to be addressed prior to any decision to make it legal since the fact that there is a major potential for legal issues to arise just due to the nature of the relationships in connection with the legal arrangement is in itself a legitimate state interest.
 
States issue the marriage license and marriage is a social construct. As such, a population (society) can define marriage anyway they want and the issuing body (the state) can also do so.
 
digsbe said:
States issue the marriage license and marriage is a social construct. As such, a population (society) can define marriage anyway they want and the issuing body (the state) can also do so.
Click to expand...

If this were true, under US law, we would possibly still have interracial marriage bans in place and prisoners in many places that have a possibility of parole would not be able to marry. The SCOTUS has ruled otherwise on this issue.
 
roguenuke said:
If this were true, under US law, we would possibly still have interracial marriage bans in place and prisoners in many places that have a possibility of parole would not be able to marry. The SCOTUS has ruled otherwise on this issue.
Click to expand...

Race is protected under the constitution. Interracial marriage between a man and woman was ruled unconstitutional. I'm all for putting up an amendment that protects sexuality or says that it's gender equality to deny marriage rights to women x women and men x men. Under the current law though it's all up to the states and it is their right.
 
Wiggen said:
I think you have a pretty low opinion of women in general. How is it again that SSM harms you?
Click to expand...

I think it's less of a low opinion and more of a realist point of view Jerry has. I'm sick of people trying to turn clear inequality into equality on many issues.
 
digsbe said:
Race is protected under the constitution. Interracial marriage between a man and woman was ruled unconstitutional. I'm all for putting up an amendment that protects sexuality or says that it's gender equality to deny marriage rights to women x women and men x men. Under the current law though it's all up to the states and it is their right.
Click to expand...

Sex/gender is protected by that same Amendment protecting race. Reed v Reed proves this.

And interracial marriage bans were allowed and considered a right of the state up til the ruling of Loving v VA.
 
roguenuke said:
Sex/gender is protected by that same Amendment protecting race. Reed v Reed proves this.

And interracial marriage bans were allowed and considered a right of the state up til the ruling of Loving v VA.
Click to expand...

If the ERA was ratified you would be correct. States and the federal government can regulate things based on gender. Women can't partake in combat roles, only men have to sign up for selective service and be forced to serve, areas prohibiting men and women can be created and all the states (besides CA) have had legal impositions of gay marriage bans without the law overturning them. I don't think, as the law is written, that it's unconstitutional to define marriage between a man and woman.
 
digsbe said:
If the ERA was ratified you would be correct. States and the federal government can regulate things based on gender. Women can't partake in combat roles, only men have to sign up for selective service and be forced to serve, areas prohibiting men and women can be created and all the states (besides CA) have had legal impositions of gay marriage bans without the law overturning them. I don't think, as the law is written, that it's unconstitutional to define marriage between a man and woman.
Click to expand...

They can only do so while protecting an important state interest. What is the state interest in keeping legal marriage between only a man and a woman? Tell me exactly what that state interest is. I know it isn't procreation, because a) at least 5 states could not use that for their own laws concerning certain opposite sex couples, b) there are opposite sex couples that cannot procreate, c) even couples with children are allowed to get divorced, and d) no couple is required to be able or want to have children together to get legally married.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That side-steps the issue. Is marraige a state or federal matter? Currently it is a state matter but many wish to make it a federal matter simply by a SCOTUS edict that gender discrimination is involved, prohibiting SS couples from participating. That is a dangerous path to go down as next that may be said for title 9 as well, if a school must provide equal athletic slots for men and women does it then need equal allocation based on race and orientation as well? If a man can be a wife, may they not also be a 'female' athlete? Equal protection can be said to mean proportional representation as has been tried with 'title 9' and 'affirmative action' nonsense in the past. We are fast approaching a point at which constitutional power may be granted without the need for any amendments, simply by inferring or 'interpreting' one thing to apply to another. The federal gov't has no business in saying that the state marraige of one man to one woman agreement, just as the federal title 9 school athletic requirement is, is wrong.
Click to expand...

You miss what I'm saying. I'm saying instituting same-sex marriage right now would not require any changes whatsoever in any of the property rights or inheritance rights or custody rights laws that we currently have in place. We could simply declare gay marriage be legal and the laws currently on the books that deal with marriage would work just fine, either for same sex or opposite sex couples. It's something we could, and should, just do right now.

For polygamous groups though, the current laws on the books wouldn't work because the current laws only work for 2 person marriages. If we were going to allow multiple-person marriages, and I have no problem whatsoever doing so, we need to consider the ramifications of these arrangements on the existing law and how we're going to modify the law to account for them, especially in divorce proceedings. It's insane to say "let's do it and not worry about the legal problems until later".
 
Lightning said:
I'd like for you to point out where in our Constitution there is a clause that says marriage is a right...thought so.
Click to expand...

The 9th amendment states...

Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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

This shows that there are rights that people have that are not enumerated in the Constitution.

SCOTUS has determined that marriage is a fundemental right. Which means that even though it is not talked about in the Constitution it is still covered by the Constitution via the 9th Amendment.

In point of fact the Bill of Rights would never have passed if the 9th Amendment and the 10th Amendment had not been included in it because many people were afraid that if they weren't then the rest of the BoR's would have been considered the only rights that people were allowed.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
If that is the case then what is so sacred about marraige applying to only two partners? Polygamy preceeded same sex marraige and is much more popular among many religions. Is it not prohibiting the free exercise of religion to restrict marraige to only one spouse? You seem to imply that a law that simply does not include something is, in effect, a ban on it. Using that logic polygamy is banned as well. It is very different to strike down a law as unconstitional, than to require adding provisions to it. SSM, like polygamy, simply not being a privilege granted by a given state is not the same as a ban on it. If MS would not accept a SSM granted legally in VT then that may be a constituional issue, but MS is not violating the rights of anyone by not offering SSM in their state. Many states have differing laws, simply because CA allows medical marijuana does not mean that TX must also do so. Even though federal prohibition of alcohol was repealed does not compel every state, county and city to allow it.
Click to expand...

Your post here assume that marriage is only a religious ideology. Its not. In fact marriage was a state thing long before religion got involved. Hell, Columbus discovered the America's (1492) before religion officially started to get involved (1563, the year the Council of Trent decreed that all marriages had to be celebrated in the presence of a priest and have at least 2 witnesses).
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That side-steps the issue. Is marraige a state or federal matter? Currently it is a state matter but many wish to make it a federal matter simply by a SCOTUS edict that gender discrimination is involved, prohibiting SS couples from participating. That is a dangerous path to go down as next that may be said for title 9 as well, if a school must provide equal athletic slots for men and women does it then need equal allocation based on race and orientation as well? If a man can be a wife, may they not also be a 'female' athlete? Equal protection can be said to mean proportional representation as has been tried with 'title 9' and 'affirmative action' nonsense in the past. We are fast approaching a point at which constitutional power may be granted without the need for any amendments, simply by inferring or 'interpreting' one thing to apply to another. The federal gov't has no business in saying that the state marraige of one man to one woman agreement, just as the federal title 9 school athletic requirement is, is wrong.
Click to expand...

Slipper slope fallacy.

Are you going to say that SCOTUS had no buisness in ruling in Loving vs Virginia? That it should have stayed a state issue?
 
Wiggen said:
I think you have a pretty low opinion of women in general.
Click to expand...
A given SSM doesn't have to involve women at all.

Wiggen said:
How is it again that SSM harms you?
Click to expand...
Pro-ssm argues that I should accept gay behavior. This would be a violation of my right to free religious expression. It's one thing to welcome and encourage folks to support gays, but pro-ssm goes further as to villainize, troll, and insult those of us who simply maintain a different religious opinion.

Tolerance is a 2 way street.
 
Jerry said:
Pro-ssm argues that I should accept gay behavior. This would be a violation of my right to free religious expression. It's one thing to welcome and encourage folks to support gays, but pro-ssm goes further as to villainize, troll, and insult those of us who simply maintain a different religious opinion.

Tolerance is a 2 way street.
Click to expand...

SSM does not in any way inhibit your right to free religious expression. No church is going to be required to marry two people of the same sex. No one is going to force you to attend a same sex wedding. No one would care if you went around with a t-shirt saying "SSM is a SIN"....well, they might care but there would be nothing that they could legally do about it. And I would support your right to such a thing just as hard as I am supporting SSM. Hell, you could go door to door like a JW and pontificate about how much homosexuality is a sin and SSM is wrong all that you want. No one is telling you to stop.

So in what way does SSM actually inhibit your right to free religious expression?

I'm going to assume that you are some sort of Christian, if your not then just take this the way that its meant. Does allowing other religions to practice thier religion in the same country as you in any way inhibit your free religious expression? Even if they may teach the opposite of what you believe in? The answer to that I would hope would be "no". And if that is true then how is it that allowing SSM which does not affect you in the same way that allowing some other religion in the US doesn't affect you be any different?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom