• 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!

the right to marry whoever

which are Constitutional rights?


  • Total voters
    51

mpg

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
7,795
Reaction score
1,784
Location
Milford, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Do consenting adults have a Constitutional right to marry any other consenting adult? Which of these are Constitutional rights?
 
Please be prepared to explain your answer.
 
Neither.

A "Constitutional Right" indicates a right granted by the Constitution which would make it a "Civil Right". Marriage (an extension of the right to free association) is a natural right and should neither be infringed nor endorsed by the government.
 
I don't care what any consenting adult does with another consenting adult, or adults. It's not my business to peek into their marriage, or their bedroom, and I'd expect the same courtesy from them.
 
Do consenting adults have a Constitutional right to marry any other consenting adult? Which of these are Constitutional rights?

The correct answer is neither. Marriage as an institution is a right. To deny a right, states have to have a good reason, and SCOTUS found they did not in the case of SSM. I am not familiar enough with polygamy to really comment on whether the states have a good reason to deny it.
 
I don't care what any consenting adult does with another consenting adult, or adults. It's not my business to peek into their marriage, or their bedroom, and I'd expect the same courtesy from them.

I assume that ANY CONSENTING ADULTS also include brother and sister, mother and son, father and daughter - as long as they are consenting adults, right?
 
Why only two? That seems so arbitrary.
 
I don't care what any consenting adult does with another consenting adult, or adults. It's not my business to peek into their marriage, or their bedroom, and I'd expect the same courtesy from them.

You are missing the core issue.

Sure, consenting adults can do whatever they want behind closed doors. Marriage, however, as a societal definition. No state (society) is obligated to affirm that relationship "X" constitutes a marriage. "X" can be gay marriage, polygamy, or even heterosexual marriage.

The correct answer is neither. Marriage as an institution is a right. .

No, marriage is a courtesy that society as a whole uses to define some relationships. Affirmation by a society that particular relationship (gay, hetersosexual, polygamous, "poly amourous") meets the societal definition of "marriage" is not a right.

Rather, it is just another example of people thinking that:
- I like social policy "X"
-Ergo, people have a right to the benefits of social policy "X".
 
Last edited:
I assume that ANY CONSENTING ADULTS also include brother and sister, mother and son, father and daughter - as long as they are consenting adults, right?

As long as they are legal and breaking no laws, it's none of my business what anybody does, any more than it is YOUR business. You wouldn't want people tell you who you could marry, would you?

Keep your nose out of the business of others, and that way you'll have time to mind your own.
 
You are missing the core issue.

Sure, consenting adults can do whatever they want behind closed doors. Marriage, however, as a societal definition. No state (society) is obligated to affirm that relationship "X" constitutes a marriage. "X" can be gay marriage, polygamy, or even heterosexual marriage.

Well they are obligated now. :lol:
 
Technically, the real answer is "neither." The Constitutional rights at issue are equal protection and due process. The Supreme Court confirmed the obvious conclusion that equal protection requires states to recognize same sex marriages. Due process does as well, although the equal protection argument is more obvious. For polyamorous relationships, the due process argument would probably be stronger than the equal protection argument.

But, I answered "both" because in layman's terms, anything Constitutional law requires is usually described as a "Constitutional right" even though that is not quite accurate. For example, people say that you have a Constitutional right to have an abortion or to have a lawyer provided for you in a criminal suit, but really those are not Constitutional rights, they're things that states need to allow/provide in order to avoid violating your Constitutional rights to privacy and due process, like the obligation to recognize same sex marriage is.
 
I assume that ANY CONSENTING ADULTS also include brother and sister, mother and son, father and daughter - as long as they are consenting adults, right?

Sure. That's whack as **** and gross but sure, assuming all are of age.
 
Neither.

A "Constitutional Right" indicates a right granted by the Constitution which would make it a "Civil Right". Marriage (an extension of the right to free association) is a natural right and should neither be infringed nor endorsed by the government.

Constitution does not grant, but rather, recognizes rights. Also, I think the 9th amendment pretty much dooms your argument.
 
Not according to the highest court in the land.

I am aware of that.

The Supreme Court decision, however, does not preclude me from being right philosophically. (And I am, of course, right).:2razz:
 
Constitution does not grant, but rather, recognizes rights. Also, I think the 9th amendment pretty much dooms your argument.

The 9th Amendment argument is one of loose constructionism. No originalist would read the 9th that way.
 
The 9th Amendment argument is one of loose constructionism. No originalist would read the 9th that way.

:shrug:

I think the 9th gives the constitution the ability to evolve with the times. Not everyone agrees with me, I get that. But at the end of the day, I still think that answering "neither" is completely false.
 
Do consenting adults have a Constitutional right to marry any other consenting adult? Which of these are Constitutional rights?

They have any right under the sun to do, whatever they want with each other. They now have the right to get all je privileges meant for matrimony and reproduction. That is a travesty of what the continuation was. But so it goes as the Tralfamadorians would say.
 
:shrug:

I think the 9th gives the constitution the ability to evolve with the times. Not everyone agrees with me, I get that. But at the end of the day, I still think that answering "neither" is completely false.

You have to remember that the the Bill of Rights was proffered by the Anti-Federalists as a protection against this type of constructionism. If you're seriously going to look at the issue from the standpoint of intent then that fact alone should be enough to lay the 9th Amendment argument to rest.
 
You have to remember that the the Bill of Rights was proffered by the Anti-Federalists as a protection against this type of constructionism. If you're seriously going to look at the issue from the standpoint of intent then that fact alone should be enough to lay the 9th Amendment argument to rest.

And yet that thing is kicking like a mule.
 
The 9th Amendment argument is one of loose constructionism. No originalist would read the 9th that way.

It would appear that former Senator, Dr. Tom Coburn, is indeed correct that we need a Constitutional Convention.
I've got an old thread up on this this but it was pretty well shredded by all Leans.
My difference with Coburn is that this CC would remain OPEN in perpetuity--as I believe our times necessitate .
 
For those against SSM don't worry folks you cannot marry your sister or your gopher.
And it will not lead to that as well, this post is for those that had hope in their hearts.
 
For those against SSM don't worry folks you cannot marry your sister or your gopher.
And it will not lead to that as well, this post is for those that had hope in their hearts.

I guess one might think that way, if one didn't know much.
 
Back
Top Bottom