• 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 straight marraige be left to the states?

Should states be able to ban straight marriage

  • Yes

    Votes: 8 57.1%

  • No

    Votes: 6 42.9%
  • Total voters
    14
99percenter

99percenter

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 31, 2011
Messages
10,658
Reaction score
3,773
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Should states have the right the ban straight marriage if they want.
 
Damn i made a typo in the poll. Does anyone know if i can edit it?
 
Sure...so far as state-sanctioned contractual agreements via marriage licenses are concerned, but it's about as logical as banning gay marriage.

Studies show that marriage promotes societal growth and stability...or at least it used to. These days marriage is largely a joke, rarely taken seriously by those entering into it....which is why it always seemed funny to me that people use the "sanctity of marriage" argument at all.
 
99percenter said:
Should states have the right the ban straight marriage if they want.
Click to expand...

It would never happen, but according to some of the arguments posed by the anti-SSM crowd the answer is yes.
 
If the states have the right to ban any type of marriage, then they should have the right to ban straight marriage too.
I also think that if a state allows marriage, they have to allow any two consenting adults to be married. Denying a person the ability to enter into a legal contract (marriage) based on the sex of the person is unconstitutional.
 
99percenter said:
Should states have the right the ban straight marriage if they want.
Click to expand...


No more than states should be allowed to ban Gay Marriage.

Two wrongs do not a right make.
 
99percenter said:
Should states have the right the ban straight marriage if they want.
Click to expand...

No. The same reason applies here as it does to SSM. Marriage is a fundemental right and as such should be protected by the Federal Government.
 
Kal'Stang said:
No. The same reason applies here as it does to SSM. Marriage is a fundemental right and as such should be protected by the Federal Government.
Click to expand...

How is it a fundamental right? It's a contract. It's original intent was to protect property and promote family status, protection, and strengthen ties between clans.
 
tessaesque said:
How is it a fundamental right? It's a contract. It's original intent was to protect property and promote family status, protection, and strengthen ties between clans.
Click to expand...

Besides my personal views, two supreme court cases have based their rulings on the premise that marriage is a fundemental right. Loving v Virginia and Zablocki v Redhail.
 
tessaesque said:
How is it a fundamental right? It's a contract. It's original intent was to protect property and promote family status, protection, and strengthen ties between clans.
Click to expand...

Contract is a fundamental right.
 
States issue the marriage licenses, they can do what they want. If they want to ban all marriages and make it purely non-legal they can do that too.
 
digsbe said:
States issue the marriage licenses, they can do what they want. If they want to ban all marriages and make it purely non-legal they can do that too.
Click to expand...

States also issue CCW permits. Should they be able to ban guns period?
 
Kal'Stang said:
States also issue CCW permits. Should they be able to ban guns period?
Click to expand...

The right to bear arms is clearly written in the Constitution, so no. As it is now though it is the state's right to define the parameters for marriage and issue marriage contracts.
 
digsbe said:
States issue the marriage licenses, they can do what they want. If they want to ban all marriages and make it purely non-legal they can do that too.
Click to expand...

Really Digs? So state can unilaterally decide to deny a marriage license to fat people? Or to old people? Or brown-haired people?
 
disneydude said:
Really Digs? So state can unilaterally decide to deny a marriage license to fat people? Or to old people? Or brown-haired people?
Click to expand...

What rights do the states have? Or does the fed have the rights? DOMA is unconstitutional because it restricts the rights of states who recognize gay marriages and trumps those state rights. A state cannot deny marriage based on race or religion (as protected in the Constitution) but they can restrict it based on gender and gender roles. A state chooses the criteria for legal marriage in accordance with the Constitution which as of now allows states to ban or approve of homosexual marriages.
 
digsbe said:
What rights do the states have? Or does the fed have the rights? DOMA is unconstitutional because it restricts the rights of states who recognize gay marriages and trumps those state rights. A state cannot deny marriage based on race or religion (as protected in the Constitution) but they can restrict it based on gender and gender roles. A state chooses the criteria for legal marriage in accordance with the Constitution which as of now allows states to ban or approve of homosexual marriages.
Click to expand...

So in other words, you are fine with a state passing a law that says once you turn 50 you aren't allowed to marry....or only blue eyed people are allowed to marry...or in order to marry you must weigh less than 200 pounds?
 
digsbe said:
The right to bear arms is clearly written in the Constitution, so no. As it is now though it is the state's right to define the parameters for marriage and issue marriage contracts.
Click to expand...

9th Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

And with two previous supreme court rulings basing their ruling on the premise that marriage is a fundemental right (which you know will affect SCOTUS'S decision when SSM gets before them) then the 9th applies. IE this is not a state decision.
 
Kal'Stang said:
9th Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

And with two previous supreme court rulings basing their ruling on the premise that marriage is a fundemental right (which you know will affect SCOTUS'S decision when SSM gets before them) then the 9th applies. IE this is not a state decision.
Click to expand...

Was not DOMA ruled unconstitutional because it trumps the state's right to define marriage how they want? It is a state decision due to the states issuing the licenses and the feds not having the authority to define marriage.
 
digsbe said:
Was not DOMA ruled unconstitutional because it trumps the state's right to define marriage how they want? It is a state decision due to the states issuing the licenses and the feds not having the authority to define marriage.
Click to expand...

Don't know as I haven't followed DOMA. However I would imagine that it would be ruled unconstitutional due to the full faith and credit clause that is in the Constitution. Not because of a "state's right to define marriage".

Article IV - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof

DOMA tried to prevent this.
 
When you say 'ban marriage', are you talking about stopping churches from doing religious ceremonies, or are you merely talking about ending the legal aspects of marriage? If it's the latter, states already have the right to ban all marriages AFAIK.
 
As far as am concerned, as long as any government gives legal rights to blood relations, then we need some contract, such as marriage, available to ensure that the person of another's choosing is given those same legal rights and the actual final say in most matters concerning the person when they are unable to do so. And I don't believe it is practical to ever remove all the rights and benefits given to blood relatives, so then there should also be marriage or some other contract similar to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom