• 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!

traditional marriage

Is traditional marriage a Constitutional right?

  • Total voters
    21
Moot said:
Gays want the right to legally marry so they can enjoy the same government benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy (tax credits, inheritance, etc.) Having their marriage officiated by a pastor or clergy would still depend on religious freedom. The law can't force pastors to marry SS couples, but they do have to recognize legal SS marriage. At least that's how I understand it.
Click to expand...

Maybe some do but when the concept of a civil union, even when that principle would be applied to all couples, was brought up it was deemed "unequal".
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Perhaps...

But the legal precedent that was followed in the same-sex marriage decision was established in the case loving v. Virginia, under the Warren court.
Click to expand...

Those who fought for, forged, and ratified the U.S. Constitution did not intend for the federal government to have ANY jurisdiction on how the states would organize their societies or how the people would be required to live their lives. They certainly did not intend that ANY federal court have ANY jurisdiction on the marriage laws or customs in any state. And legal precedent can be just as corrupt as any new laws the courts illegally take upon themselves to establish. The courts were intended to interpret and rule on existing law period.
 
Lutherf said:
Maybe some do but when the concept of a civil union, even when that principle would be applied to all couples, was brought up it was deemed "unequal".
Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing, but how would a civil union be deemed unequal?
 
AlbqOwl said:
Those who fought for, forged, and ratified the U.S. Constitution did not intend for the federal government to have ANY jurisdiction on how the states would organize their societies or how the people would be required to live their lives. They certainly did not intend that ANY federal court have ANY jurisdiction on the marriage laws or customs in any state. And legal precedent can be just as corrupt as any new laws the courts illegally take upon themselves to establish. The courts were intended to interpret and rule on existing law period.
Click to expand...

Does the supremacy ring any bells?

Federal law
|
|
V
State law

Or does the ruling in McCulloch v. Maryland also not ring any bells for you?
 
Fearandloathing said:
How long a list have we in what is not specifically mentioned in the constitution?

Government got involved in marriage in the late middle ages when kings started using it to be bigger kings. It became written law when money became involved.

It has always been the church who tried to control who would marry.

If you take away the assets and money equation of marriage, government is irrelevant
Click to expand...

That's not the history in this country. And the history you cite applied to kings and nobility only, not the masses. Massachusetts was the first state to institute licensing for marriage, and it slowwwly expanded to other states from there.

In some states, common law is still recognized, requiring no licensing from the state.

As for how long the list is for extra-constitutional issues... It's a ridiculous question.
 
I agree with the ruling from the Supreme Court on this marriage issue...based on the 14th Amendment and, more specifically, upon the concept of incorporation as it applies in connection to the States and the US Constitution.

However, I think the Supreme Court made a mistake and is taking a dangerous course when it confers upon marriage the identification of being a "right". As I said in an earlier post, if the People want marriage to be a right, they should establish that right, under the Constitution, using the prescribed method provided in the Constitution. Since marriage is not established to be a right by the Constitution, the Court doesn't have the ability...nor should it...to give marriage that status.

This ruling sets a precedence for the establishment of virtually anything else as a "right" if the Court wants to do so...regardless whether it has been established in the Constitution.

How about a...

"Right to food"
"Right to housing"
"Right to health care"
"Right to not be offended"
 
Last edited:
Unitedwestand13 said:
Does the supremacy ring any bells?

Federal law
|
|
V
State law

Or does the ruling in McCulloch v. Maryland also not ring any bells for you?
Click to expand...

There are rulings and there are rulings. Some are terrible rulings as we saw with Dred Scott, Plessy, and Kelo. Some are good rulings such as Brown vs Board of Education. The Courts are made up of men and women who are saint and sinner, wise and ill advised, noble and not so noble, and all come with their own personal beliefs, opinions, and prejudices. Somewhere along the way the Court assigned to itself the privilege of making decisions based on their personal beliefs, opinions, and prejudices rather than strict interpretation of the law as intended. Once it did that it stepped outside of its intended boundaries and it has never returned to them.

So don't cite case law to me as evidence of what is right and wrong or what I should believe. I do not and will not make infallible gods of the courts that must be bowed down to and obeyed no matter what.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Those who fought for, forged, and ratified the U.S. Constitution did not intend for the federal government to have ANY jurisdiction on how the states would organize their societies or how the people would be required to live their lives. They certainly did not intend that ANY federal court have ANY jurisdiction on the marriage laws or customs in any state. And legal precedent can be just as corrupt as any new laws the courts illegally take upon themselves to establish. The courts were intended to interpret and rule on existing law period.
Click to expand...

And then there was this thing called the Civil War. But there actually were some Founding fathers who wanted a stronger federal government from the beginning.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
The Supreme Court has stated that Marriage is a constitutional right, thus its a constitutional right. That is how our system of government works in this country.
Click to expand...

They didn't say marriage was a constitutional right, they said that EQUALITY in marriage was a constitutional right. If one group of people can get married, all people can get married. You cannot discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation. That is how our system of government works in this country.
 
Moot said:
I'm not disagreeing, but how would a civil union be deemed unequal?
Click to expand...

Because it is being "offered" by a) those with no actual authority to do so and b) only to try to appease the pro ssm side once the anti side realized the tide turned against them. It was banned by most of those states that put into place ssm bans and was never recognized by the federal government as equivalent to marriage.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
It is taken more lightly than it used to because of no fault divorces, not because the government recognizes a marriage.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Marriage is way to easy to get into and way too easy to get out of.
 
AlbqOwl said:
There are rulings and there are rulings. Some are terrible rulings as we saw with Dred Scott, Plessy, and Kelo. Some are good rulings such as Brown vs Board of Education. The Courts are made up of men and women who are saint and sinner, wise and ill advised, noble and not so noble, and all come with their own personal beliefs, opinions, and prejudices. Somewhere along the way the Court assigned to itself the privilege of making decisions based on their personal beliefs, opinions, and prejudices rather than strict interpretation of the law as intended. Once it did that it stepped outside of its intended boundaries and it has never returned to them.

So don't cite case law to me as evidence of what is right and wrong or what I should believe. I do not and will not make infallible gods of the courts that must be bowed down to and obeyed no matter what.
Click to expand...

My response is the same one the author Kurt Vonnegut used whenever someone died in his book slaughterhouse five

"So it goes"
 
roguenuke said:
And then there was this thing called the Civil War. But there actually were some Founding fathers who wanted a stronger federal government from the beginning.
Click to expand...

Not a single one of the Founders got everything they wanted in the Constitution and most likely every single one had to compromise and accept some phrase or clause that they did not think should be there. What they did finally mostly agree on--a few never agreed to sign the final document--was the original Constitution that everybody felt they could live with and that would accomplish at least most of what they wanted to accomplish and could sell to the folks back home, most especially after the Bill of Rights was added. The document they adopted was brilliantly conceived and allowed the most amazing nation the world to flourish with people who governed themselves.

I believe they would ALL to a man be rolling in their graves at the mere suggestion of any part of the federal government, let alone the Supreme Court, dictating to the people what marriage must be and what the people were required to accept. At the same time they may have agreed or disagreed with whatever decisions the people made on that issue themselves but would have allowed the people to decide.
 
roguenuke said:
Because it is being "offered" by a) those with no actual authority to do so and b) only to try to appease the pro ssm side once the anti side realized the tide turned against them. It was banned by most of those states that put into place ssm bans and was never recognized by the federal government as equivalent to marriage.
Click to expand...

Good, thank you, I was wondering. I admit I haven't kept up with all SSM discussions. We all have priorities on which battle to fight and SSM just wasn't one of mine. But I'm glad for the Gay community. I'm old enough to remember in the 1970s when Gays were still getting arrested for just being Gay and now here they are. It was impressive how they organized and just kept at it until they won. Congratulations to the Gay communitee, well done. :)
 
Last edited:
Unitedwestand13 said:
My response is the same one the author Kurt Vonnegut used whenever someone died in his book slaughterhouse five

"So it goes"
Click to expand...

Which makes one wonder if there is any original or independent thought or conviction in there someplace. :) The point is that if we are to be a free people, we must be able to organize our societies and live our lives as WE choose and not as an authoritarian central government dictates. And if that means we get it wrong sometimes, well, then so it goes. The Founders were of a strong conviction that a people given liberty to choose and order their own destinies would get it a lot more right than they would get it wrong. They had no such faith in a self-serving government, however.
 
Gardener said:
Anybody who wishes to get a traditional wedding should be allowed to do so, yes.

According to the most basic tenet of libertarianism, however, one person's right to swing their fist ends at another person's nose, so these poeple do not have the right to dictate to everybody else.

I prefer India Pale Ales. That does not mean I support outlaw porters or bocks.
Click to expand...
Since we're talking about being legally married, and not just a church wedding or a private wedding, it isn't just a matter of being allowed to do something; it's about having the right to have the government sanction your marriage.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
The Supreme Court has stated that Marriage is a constitutional right, thus its a constitutional right. That is how our system of government works in this country.
Click to expand...
You NEVER disagree with the SCOTUS? Even SCOTUS justices disagree with the SCOTUS. Otherwise, all SCOTUS decisions would be unanimous.

BTW, are you sure they said that?
 
AlbqOwl said:
Which makes one wonder if there is any original or independent thought or conviction in there someplace. :) The point is that if we are to be a free people, we must be able to organize our societies and live our lives as WE choose and not as an authoritarian central government dictates. And if that means we get it wrong sometimes, well, then so it goes. The Founders were of a strong conviction that a people given liberty to choose and order their own destinies would get it a lot more right than they would get it wrong. They had no such faith in a self-serving government, however.
Click to expand...


Have we not used that freedom to decide upon which road this country shall travel?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Have we not used that freedom to decide upon which road this country shall travel?
Click to expand...

Depends on what you mean by that. Authority was never given to the central government to decide that.
 
Moot said:
"The Ninth Amendment (Amendment IX) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, addresses rights, retained by the people, that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.' " - google


Gays want the right to legally marry so they can enjoy the same government benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy (tax credits, inheritance, etc.) Having their marriage officiated by a pastor or clergy would still depend on religious freedom. The law can't force pastors to marry SS couples, but they do have to recognize legal SS marriage. At least that's how I understand it.
Click to expand...



?


There are people who don't know that?

Please, gay marriage has been legal here since 1997

Thanks for your input
 
Occam's Razor said:
That's not the history in this country. And the history you cite applied to kings and nobility only, not the masses. Massachusetts was the first state to institute licensing for marriage, and it slowwwly expanded to other states from there.

In some states, common law is still recognized, requiring no licensing from the state.

As for how long the list is for extra-constitutional issues... It's a ridiculous question.
Click to expand...



Once again a complete miss on all points.
 
mpg said:
You NEVER disagree with the SCOTUS? Even SCOTUS justices disagree with the SCOTUS. Otherwise, all SCOTUS decisions would be unanimous.

BTW, are you sure they said that?
Click to expand...

Our opinion on what is and is not constitutional is irrelevant. The only opinions that actually matter are those in the federal court system, and if it goes before SCOTUS, the opinion of the majority of justices. If the majority of justices ruled that you have a constitutional right to kick a Texan, then for all intents and purposes, that would be your constitutional right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom