• 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!

Is Gay Marriage a Constitutional Right in the U.S.?

Is Gay Marriage a Constitutional Right in the U.S.?


  • Total voters
    64

Dav

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
5,536
Reaction score
1,813
Location
Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
So a friend of mine posted this on Facebook:
Barack Obama Ignores The 14th Amendment When It Comes To Same-Sex Marriage Equality Across America

And it got me thinking. The 14th Amendment states:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

According to Loving v Virginia ([ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v_virginia]Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]), this means that marriage requirements cannot be based on race.

So does this mean, then, that the right to marriage cannot be restricted based on gender?

I am interested to see what people think of this.
 
So a friend of mine posted this on Facebook:
Barack Obama Ignores The 14th Amendment When It Comes To Same-Sex Marriage Equality Across America

And it got me thinking. The 14th Amendment states:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

According to Loving v Virginia (Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), this means that marriage requirements cannot be based on race.

So does this mean, then, that the right to marriage cannot be restricted based on gender?

I am interested to see what people think of this.

I don't think marriage itself is a right; in fact, I think it's unconstitutional.
 
So does this mean, then, that the right to marriage cannot be restricted based on gender?
Directly?
No, as the case you cited revolves around race, not gender.

Certainly, should the issue get the SCotUS, this case will be invoked, but it will only be relevant if it can be argued that sexual orientation is of equal 'class' to race, creed, color, religion, etc.
 
I don't think marriage itself is a right; in fact, I think it's unconstitutional.
Marriage exixts because state laws say so.
If you repeal the state laws, marriage ceases to exist.
This, alone, means that marriage is a privilege, not a right, as rights exist independent of an act of creation by the government.

Note specifically that while a state may allow same-sex couples to marry, this marriage need not be rexongized by other states, and is NOT rexongized by the federal government.
 
The only argument I can see being made for marriage being a right is through right of contract. As the marriage license is a government issued and recognized contract, and the People have the right to contract, the government should not be able to put terms such as sex requirements upon the contract without infringing upon a person's right to contract.
 
I do not think it would be considered a right under the constitution, though I strongly think gay marriage should be legal and recognized the same as strait marriage. If it takes amending the constitution to make it so, it is one of the few things I would support amending the constitution for.
 
I think it's as much a constitutional right as hetero marriage is. I can't wait until it's legalized across the board and the issue stops cluttering up the political scene where far more important issues need to be addressed.
 
So a friend of mine posted this on Facebook:
Barack Obama Ignores The 14th Amendment When It Comes To Same-Sex Marriage Equality Across America

And it got me thinking. The 14th Amendment states:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

According to Loving v Virginia (Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), this means that marriage requirements cannot be based on race.

So does this mean, then, that the right to marriage cannot be restricted based on gender?

I am interested to see what people think of this.

There is no right to marry a parson of the same gender.

Now maybe that right should exist, maybe we should create it, however gay-marriage is not today a constitutional right.
 
Marriage exixts because state laws say so.

Marriage exists because our species has for millions of years valued the relationship which forms and maintains the family above all other relationships.

Marriage existed long before anything called a "state" was ever dreamed up.
 
Is marriage a Constitutional right? BTW, the Constitution does not bestow rights.
 
I think it's as much a constitutional right as hetero marriage is. I can't wait until it's legalized across the board and the issue stops cluttering up the political scene where far more important issues need to be addressed.

Right, just like how RvW resolved the abortion issue. Take interracial marriage as another example, since Loving you would never hear of a Justice refusing to marry couples on the basis of race. It's unheard of.

Legalizing a thing clearly ends the controversy.
 
Last edited:
Marriage exists because our species has for millions of years valued the relationship which forms and maintains the family above all other relationships.
Yes... but that would me 'marriage' in the terms of a relationship between two people - not the legal construct that is the real reason for the discussion.

You can call anyone you want your husband/wife -- but that doesnt mean the state recongizes it, and if the state doesn't recongize it, then no matter how many times you're referred to someone as your husband/wife, they do not qualify as such when dealing with all of the various laws regarding same.
 
Marriage exixts because state laws say so.
If you repeal the state laws, marriage ceases to exist.
This, alone, means that marriage is a privilege, not a right, as rights exist independent of an act of creation by the government.

The 14th amendment protects privileges though.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
 
Marriage exixts because state laws say so.
If you repeal the state laws, marriage ceases to exist.
This, alone, means that marriage is a privilege, not a right, as rights exist independent of an act of creation by the government.

Note specifically that while a state may allow same-sex couples to marry, this marriage need not be recognize by other states, and is NOT rexongized by the federal government.

The state has now authority to violate gay's right to privacy by sticking it's nose in their business unless that gay couple is raising children.

Legalizing gay-marriage for childless couples is a gross violation of basic human rights, and I wish a painful death on those homophobic politicians who violate the rights of gay citizens by establishing gay-marriage.
 
Last edited:
No, it's not, but then again, *NO* marriage is a constitutional right in the U.S. However, if you are going to legalize heterosexual marriage, you have no credible basis whatsoever for outlawing homosexual marriage. The constitution guarantees equality for all, not just the politically-correct.
 
The state has now authority to violate gay's right to privacy by sticking it's nose in their business unless that gay couple is raising children.

Legalizing gay-marriage for childless couples is a gross violation of basic human rights, and I wish a painful death on those homophobic politicians who violate the rights of gay citizens by establishing gay-marriage.

You want to run that one by me again? :confused:
 
Having your marraige legally recognized by the government is not a right, it's a privilege granted by the state for tax benefits and ease of legal proceedings.
 
Having your marraige legally recognized by the government is not a right, it's a privilege granted by the state for tax benefits and ease of legal proceedings.

Actually marriage is a right and the states loose out on taxes. On the whole when taxes are paid everybody wins in reference to marriage be it gay or heterosexual.
 
Marriage exists because our species has for millions of years valued the relationship which forms and maintains the family above all other relationships.

Marriage existed long before anything called a "state" was ever dreamed up.

Did state-sanctioned marriages exist before a "state"? Because that's what we're talking about.
 
Is marriage a Constitutional right? BTW, the Constitution does not bestow rights.

"Bestow"... LOL

That's a big word there John Wayne...

BTW, the duke was a flaming poof... You knew that, right?

Raymond Burr, James Dean, Cary Grant...
 
"Bestow"... LOL

That's a big word there John Wayne...

BTW, the duke was a flaming poof... You knew that, right?

Raymond Burr, James Dean, Cary Grant...
Yeah, in your wet dreams.
 
To clarify, this isn't about whether or not marriage is a "right". It's about whether discriminating a marriage based on gender is unconstitutional, similar to how doing so based on race is unconstitutional thanks to Loving v. Virginia.
 
To clarify, this isn't about whether or not marriage is a "right". It's about whether discriminating a marriage based on gender is unconstitutional, similar to how doing so based on race is unconstitutional thanks to Loving v. Virginia.

Marriage, by its very definiton, is a discrimnatory institution; just like a minority housing grant. If we permit them to exist as such then there is no argument in favor of equal protection.
 
If States control the privilege of who can officially marry and receive benefits then the privilege should apply to all couples. I often hear people say that homosexuals have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex but that is irrelevant, as virtually all state constitutions make no mention of the gender of those to be married; in fact, most constitutions don't mention marriage at all. The exception to this, of course, are the recent amendments via state majority votes or legislative powers. Non-constitutional law is what regulates marriage so the states have the power to create the additional right for homosexuals.

Modern equal privilege is either applicable to all civil rights situations or it should be tossed out altogether. Marriage is about families and efforts to block legislation granting homosexual couples marriage rights is only in turn damaging their ability to manage their families and raise children in a stable environment.
 
Back
Top Bottom