• 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

mpg

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
7,795
Reaction score
1,784
Location
Milford, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
This is about a consenting man and a consenting woman who aren't related and are of sound mind and body. Is it a Constitutional right?

This is not about a church wedding or a private wedding. This is about government marriage.

I apologize in advance if I haven't made this clear enough.
 
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.
 
This is about a consenting man and a consenting woman who aren't related and are of sound mind and body. Is it a Constitutional right?

This is not about a church wedding or a private wedding. This is about government marriage.

I apologize in advance if I haven't made this clear enough.

As presently interpreted the government seems to have to marry all or none. None would be better and not force the government to run rough shod over citizens' fundamental rights, which the USSC has now forced.
 
This is about a consenting man and a consenting woman who aren't related and are of sound mind and body. Is it a Constitutional right?

This is not about a church wedding or a private wedding. This is about government marriage.

I apologize in advance if I haven't made this clear enough.

The very idea than a government can confer anything other than a contractual obligation regarding property rights on a couple is....typical. Frankly, I think it has a lot to do with why marriage is taken so lightly these days.
 
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.
 
The very idea than a government can confer anything other than a contractual obligation regarding property rights on a couple is....typical. Frankly, I think it has a lot to do with why marriage is taken so lightly these days.

It is taken more lightly than it used to because of no fault divorces, not because the government recognizes a marriage.
 
Actually, I know not .. The Constitution does not seem to "go into" social things such as marriages ... Why should it, its an ancient scrap of paper..
I voted NO , but prefer "I do not know " .
 
As presently interpreted the government seems to have to marry all or none. None would be better and not force the government to run rough shod over citizens' fundamental rights, which the USSC has now forced.

Who is the Supreme Court forcing to get married? Doh!
 
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.
I'm not a lawyer, so I'm hypothesizing here, but I think you're on the right-track -

But, I'm not sure if the Court defined marriage as a right, or the struck down gender discrimination in the act of marriage.

The difference would be: the former would force marriage as a right, while the latter would force non-discrimination in cases where marriage chose to occur.

There's a difference.
 
This is about a consenting man and a consenting woman who aren't related and are of sound mind and body. Is it a Constitutional right?

This is not about a church wedding or a private wedding. This is about government marriage.

I apologize in advance if I haven't made this clear enough.

I really hate to go the "it doesn't matter" route, but fourteen individual rulings determining that marriage is a right renders the question moot.

Video: 14 Supreme Court Rulings on Marriage | American Foundation for Equal Rights

Believe me, I hate the holy hell out of the Citizens United and Eminent Domain rulings, but if future Supreme Courts ruled thirteen more times that they're constitutional, eventually you have to ask if maybe they know something you don't.

One more thing: as of yesterday's ruling, there is no "traditional marriage," "same sex marriage" or "interracial marriage." It's now just marriage.
 
Last edited:
You can have your "traditional" marriage and no one will stop you. In fact no one has ever legitimately tried to stop anyone from getting married because it is traditional the government included.
 
I'm not a lawyer, so I'm hypothesizing here, but I think you're on the right-track -

But, I'm not sure if the Court defined marriage as a right, or the struck down gender discrimination in the act of marriage.

The difference would be: the former would force marriage as a right, while the latter would force non-discrimination in cases where marriage chose to occur.

There's a difference.

The Supreme Court declared marriage a right in Loving v. Virginia:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
 
This is about a consenting man and a consenting woman who aren't related and are of sound mind and body. Is it a Constitutional right?

This is not about a church wedding or a private wedding. This is about government marriage.

I apologize in advance if I haven't made this clear enough.

Marriage is an extra-constitutional issue. That is, it's not specifically mentioned in the constitution.. Marriage is an institution of family and in many cases, religion. The idea that one would need a license from any gov't to marry anyone is absurd.

The requiring of a license has its roots in attempts to control who one can marry. For example, historically, to prevent mixed marriages, marriages between a coupe from different religions, or many other reasons to justify social engineering.

The gov't has no place interfering with something that is extra governmental and extra constitutional.
 
It is taken more lightly than it used to because of no fault divorces, not because the government recognizes a marriage.

Would there be such a thing as "no fault divorce" if government didn't regulate (not just recognize) marriage?
 
This is about a consenting man and a consenting woman who aren't related and are of sound mind and body. Is it a Constitutional right?

This is not about a church wedding or a private wedding. This is about government marriage.

I apologize in advance if I haven't made this clear enough.

There is zero, nada, zip, nothing in the U.S. Constitution that addresses marriage in any context, legal, civil, social, religious. This was clearly intended to be one of those issues for the states to regulate as they chose to do so or if they chose to do so.
 
There is zero, nada, zip, nothing in the U.S. Constitution that addresses marriage in any context, legal, civil, social, religious. This was clearly intended to be one of those issues for the states to regulate as they chose to do so or if they chose to do so.

And what if the federal courts are asked to intervene?
 
There is zero, nada, zip, nothing in the U.S. Constitution that addresses marriage in any context, legal, civil, social, religious. This was clearly intended to be one of those issues for the states to regulate as they chose to do so or if they chose to do so.

I agree.

Furthermore, I say that if the People want to consider marriage...of any sort...to be a Constitutional Right, then the Constitution should be amended to confer that right. That's what the Framers did when they agreed to the Bill of Rights. We should not take shortcuts.
 
And what if the federal courts are asked to intervene?

The federal courts should intervene only upon appeal to rule on the extent of the intent and application of the existing law of the state. The court should not be able to rewrite that law or amend it or establish the law it thinks should exist. If a law is ruled unconstitutional, there must be clear and explicit language as to why the existing law violates the existing language and intent of the Constitution and not what the Court thinks the Constitution should say. The Court should always defines the intent and letter of the law that applies.
 
Marriage is an extra-constitutional issue. That is, it's not specifically mentioned in the constitution.. Marriage is an institution of family and in many cases, religion. The idea that one would need a license from any gov't to marry anyone is absurd.

The requiring of a license has its roots in attempts to control who one can marry. For example, historically, to prevent mixed marriages, marriages between a coupe from different religions, or many other reasons to justify social engineering.

The gov't has no place interfering with something that is extra governmental and extra constitutional.



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
 
The federal courts should intervene only upon appeal to rule on the extent of the intent and application of the existing law of the state. The court should not be able to rewrite that law or amend it or establish the law it thinks should exist. If a law is ruled unconstitutional, there must be clear and explicit language as to why the existing law violates the existing language and intent of the Constitution and not what the Court thinks the Constitution should say. The Court should always defines the intent and letter of the law that applies.

To qoute cheif justice Charles Evans Hughes

We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is, and the judiciary is the safeguard of our property and our liberty and our property under the Constitution.
 
I'm for traditional marriage. You know, a thousand wives and a few hundred concubines. As shown in the Bible.
 
To qoute cheif justice Charles Evans Hughes

I'm pretty sure that Justice Hughes would NOT have condoned the most recent SCOTUS ruling, not because of his personal views on SSM but because it would not have seen it as within the jurisdiction of the Court. He opposed FDR's court packing scheme and though he supported some of the New Deal, he also opposed much of the regulatory authority included in it as unconstitutional and taking the place of the authority of the courts. He had a pretty good sense of the separation of powers and what the role of each branch of government was intended to be.

I've always wondered how our destiny might have been changed had he won the election against Woodrow Wilson in 1916.

But Hughes almost certainly would have been among the dissent had the SSM issue come up before the court when he was Chief Justice.
 
I'm pretty sure that Justice Hughes would NOT have condoned the most recent SCOTUS ruling, not because of his personal views on SSM but because it would not have seen it as within the jurisdiction of the Court. He opposed FDR's court packing scheme and though he supported some of the New Deal, he also opposed much of the regulatory authority included in it as unconstitutional and taking the place of the authority of the courts. He had a pretty good sense of the separation of powers and what the role of each branch of government was intended to be.

I've always wondered how our destiny might have been changed had he won the election against Woodrow Wilson in 1916.

But Hughes almost certainly would have been among the dissent had the SSM issue come up before the court when he was Chief Justice.

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.
 
How long a list have we in what is not specifically mentioned in the constitution?

"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


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
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom