• 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
No it is not.
 
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.

Marital status and familial relation are Federal protected classes, so be careful your argument is unique to gays.
 
Equal protection of the law is a constitutional right. Marriage is a form of protection the law offers, so it is constitutionally required that it be applied equally regardless of sexual orientation.
 
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.

Another thought: SCOTUS didn't simply dismiss Texas and Virginia on the reasoning of skin color.

SOTUS took the time to look into *why* a racial requirement was instituted.

If the reason behind the racial requirement were valid, interracial marriage would not likely exist today.

Just because something discriminates against race/sex does not automatically mean it's wrong to do so.
 
Equal protection of the law is a constitutional right. Marriage is a form of protection the law offers, so it is constitutionally required that it be applied equally regardless of sexual orientation.

It already is, though.

Can you quote the law preventing a homosexual man from marrying a homosexual woman?

If you can't, then please realize that marriage does not therefor prevent homosexuals from entering into it.

And before you go there, no, heteros have no such right or freedom to marry just whomever we think we're in love with, either.
 
Last edited:
It already is, though.

How so? The SCOTUS hasn't ruled yet on whether bans on gay marriage violate the 14th amendment and most states are currently denying gay people the right to marry...
 
How so? The SCOTUS hasn't ruled yet on whether bans on gay marriage violate the 14th amendment and most states are currently denying gay people the right to marry...

I answer your question in my edit.
 
Can you quote the law preventing a homosexual man from marrying a homosexual woman?

Oh this argument... That's equivalent to saying that a law that says everybody is allowed to attend Christian churches, but nobody is allowed to attend Muslim mosques doesn't discriminate against Muslims because they're free to attend Christian churches just like everybody else... It's just a semantic game. The reality is that in most states gay people aren't legally allowed to marry the gender they're attracted to while straight people are.

Would you feel differently if the law said that only same sex couples were allowed to marry?
 
Oh this argument... That's equivalent to saying that a law that says everybody is allowed to attend Christian churches, but nobody is allowed to attend Muslim mosques doesn't discriminate against Muslims because they're free to attend Christian churches just like everybody else... It's just a semantic game.
Oh, then you must be able to quote the law allowing 2 heterosexual men, or 2 heterosexual women, to marry, if this is about discriminating against gays.

The reality is that in most states gay people aren't legally allowed to marry the gender they're attracted to while straight people are.

I see no reason to assume that's a bad thing. Why should it change?

Would you feel differently if the law said that only same sex couples were allowed to marry?

Inherently, of course, but rather my different feeling would be a negative feeling would depend on what sort of world that were.

***
Feelings have no value in any event, so let's stick to facts if you don't mind.
 
Last edited:
Oh, then you must be able to quote the law allowing 2 heterosexual men, or 2 heterosexual women, to marry, if this is about discriminating against gays.

That doesn't circumvent my analogy. In the example I gave Christians would not be allowed to attend mosques either, but it would clearly be a violation of the equal protection of Muslims, wouldn't it?
 
That doesn't circumvent my analogy. In the example I gave Christians would not be allowed to attend mosques either, but it would clearly be a violation of the equal protection of Muslims, wouldn't it?

One of the critical differences between marriage and religion which invalidate your analogy is that marriage is about what the government will actively endorse, while the government has to stay completely out of the issue of religion, endorsing none.

If you would now like to discuss gay marriage, the topic of this thread, please stop ignoring the content of my posts and directly address them accordingly.

  • Can you quote the law preventing a homosexual man from marrying a homosexual woman?
  • Can you quote the law allowing 2 heterosexual men, or 2 heterosexual women, to marry?
  • Why should anyone be allowed to marry the same gender?
 
Last edited:
No. Marriage is not a "consitutional right". Not everyone is allowed to get married such as those with close family ties, children and even those of the same gender.

The case of Loving vs. Virginia does not apply to this debate as it only considered race as a factor to marriage. In Loving, the couple in question consisted of one man and one woman.
 
You want to run that one by me again? :confused:

You want me to just cut-n-paste the same post or what?

Just read it a few more time, seriously, sometimes I have to do that myself.
 
One of the critical differences between marriage and religion which invalidate your analogy is that marriage is about what the government will actively endorse, while the government has to stay completely out of the issue of religion, endorsing none.

Ok, then change the example to granting tax exempt status. If the government granted tax exemption to one church, but not to others, would you see that as discriminatory?

Why should anyone be allowed to marry the same gender?

Constitutionally because the equal protection clause requires that if people of one sexual orientation are allowed to marry the gender they're attracted to, the other needs to be as well.

Morally there are lots of reasons:

1) Government endorsing the message that gay people are inferior by prohibiting gay marriage supports a culture of prejudice in general against gays. That prejudice provides a fertile ground for violent hate crimes, employment discrimination, etc. An organization like a government can't say that one group is inferior to another then wash their hands of responsibility for the hate that a view like that engenders.
2) Gay marriage only effects gay people. It has no impact whatsoever on straight people. So, it really isn't any of your business telling other people what to do when it doesn't have anything to do with you.
3) Gay people are suffering all kinds of negative impacts by not being allowed to marry. When their spouse is hospitalized they aren't able to make decisions on their behalf, maybe not even allowed to visit. When a gay person's spouse gets insurance through their employer they often aren't covered. When their spouse passes away the estate needs to go through a will. If they didn't have a will, the spouse gets nothing. If they did have a will, the spouse may need to pay inheritance taxes on their own property, etc.
 
Last edited:
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.

While the Constitution does not mention anything specifically about marriage I believe that Loving vs Virginia does show it as a right granted by the Constitution.

The fact that Loving vs Virginia shows that denying someone a marriage based on race is wrong. Put aside the race issue this case shows that the government considers marriage a right. Or at least something that cannot be legislated against.
 
Ok, then change the example to granting tax exempt status. If the government granted tax exemption to one church, but not to others, would you see that as discriminatory?

My church is NOT tax exempt (and proud of it), while many others in the aria are, so no, it's not discrimination.

The legal 'institution' (using the term lightly) of 501c3 tax exempt status as it applies to churches is meant to serve a specific purpose. Any church which does not serve that purpose may not enter the 501c3 institution; though such churches retain the right to freely associate as they please.

Likewise the legal institution of marriage is meant to serve a specific purpose. Couples who do not wish to serve that purpose have no business being in the institution, though they retain the right continue freely associating and cohabiting with whomever they please.

Now please, I beg you, stop with the analogies and stick to this topic.

Constitutionally because the equal protection clause....

With sincere respect, I stopped reading right there.

I don't even support hetero marriage for the sake of equality, so it doesn't follow that I would now support gay-marriage for equality.
 
Last edited:
My church is NOT tax exempt (and proud of it), while many others in the aria are, so no, it's not discrimination.

Interesting. Why aren't they tax exempt? Political involvement?

Likewise the legal institution of marriage is meant to serve a specific purpose. Couples who do not wish to serve that purpose have no business being in the institution, though they retain the right continue freely associating and cohabiting with whomever they please.

What purpose is that that straight couple serve? Procreation? If so, I think it's a pretty hard case to make that we need to encourage more procreation... Regardless, what we encourage on this issue has no impact. Gay people are gay and they're going to be gay regardless of any marriage laws. It's just a question of how harsh we're going to make life for them.

Now please, I beg you, stop with the analogies and stick to this topic.

Analogies are a great way to tackle prejudice. Lots of times people have blind spots with a particular issue, but see their bias by looking at similar situations. Next to actual exposure to whatever group is experiencing the discrimination, it's about the best way to get people to see the issue in a different light.

I don't even support hetero marriage for the sake of equality, so it doesn't follow that I would now support gay-marriage for equality.

That doesn't make sense... Of course the reason you support hetero marriage isn't equality. It's because you're hetero. That's sort of like saying I don't support allowing white people to attend college because of equality, so why should I be concerned about black people having equal access to colleges?

You didn't respond to my last three points, but there is one that I'm very curious to hear your thoughts on. Why is this your business? If banning same sex marriage hurts gays and doesn't effect you at all, why should society take your opinion into account at all on the matter? Or do you feel it does effect you? If so, how?
 
Interesting. Why aren't they tax exempt? Political involvement?

We decided we didn't want to follow the 501c3 rules. We wanted to hold services and events on public school grounds for students, give each patron an individual candle to hold for the Christmas service, endorse or oppose politicians and laws, invite politicians to speak, etc.

We decided that the church we wanted to run was not the sort of 'business' (using the term lightly again) the state wanted to promote. So we did not enter the legal institution. As a result we do not benefit from any of the financial buffs or legal protections, and that's our choice.

We have a cafe and book store attached to and run by the church, which pays the bills. We pay land tax, the clergy are "employees" of the business and pay income tax, etc.

If a gay couple decided they don't want to be monogamous or raise children, that's fine, but they have no business entering a legal institution promoting monogamous couples raising children; just like our church has no business entering the 501c3 if we're not going to do what 501c3 is meant for.

What purpose is that that straight couple serve? Procreation? If so, I think it's a pretty hard case to make that we need to encourage more procreation... Regardless, what we encourage on this issue has no impact. Gay people are gay and they're going to be gay regardless of any marriage laws. It's just a question of how harsh we're going to make life for them.

Keep in mind that we are not speaking of any civil rights.

We are only talking about a word.

IMO gays can have all the same civil rights, but not the word.

That doesn't make sense... Of course the reason you support hetero marriage isn't equality. It's because you're hetero. That's sort of like saying I don't support allowing white people to attend college because of equality, so why should I be concerned about black people having equal access to colleges?

That's incredibly ignorant of you.

First, I do not oppose gay-rights. You may note that my objections regard each and every single couple who have no intention of being monogamous and raising children. That includes heteros. That includes mixed races. That includes gays. A childless gay couple is equal in every way to a childless hetero couple in that ALL childless couples are equally worthless.

Second, if I opposed gay "marriage" simply because I'm hetero, then gays only desire "marriage" because they're homo. As if that doesn't shut down your intellectual apathy, your reasoning fails to explain heteros who support gay "marriage", nor homosexuals who oppose gay "marriage".

You didn't respond to my last three points, but there is one that I'm very curious to hear your thoughts on. Why is this your business? If banning same sex marriage hurts gays and doesn't effect you at all, why should society take your opinion into account at all on the matter? Or do you feel it does effect you? If so, how?

Well if it doesn't affect me then I don't see why I should support it.

I'll just vote to oppose because what do I care, it doesn't affect me.

***
Could you please link to your post where you asked Dav why he made this thread, if gay-marriage is non of anyone's business?
 
Last edited:
If I'm correct, the main reasons you oppose it are:
a) Most gay couples aren't monogamous
b) Most gay couples don't raise children
Aren't those true of all types of couples?
Would you support recognition by the state of gay marriage if such recognition required adoption?

Specifically, if anyone is knowledgeable on the subject, what specific advantages do legally recognized couples have? If the reasons for those advantages are a and b above, wouldn't it be fair to offer those same advantages if they can offer evidence that they do not fall into the categories specified?

One last thing: How are you and everyone else with a similar stance as you hurt or disadvantaged such that we should not extend the advantages to them?
 
Last edited:
If I'm correct, the main reasons you oppose it are:
a) Most gay couples aren't monogamous
b) Most gay couples don't raise children

I fully and completely support and actively endorse full legal "marriage" for every monogamous gay couple raising children.

No children, no "marriage". Rather the couple is gay/same-sex or not is irrelevant. Heteros should NOT marry if they are not going to be monogamous and raise children.

Aren't those true of all types of couples?

Some couples are more valuable than others.

Would you support recognition by the state of gay marriage if such recognition required adoption?

Yes.

Marriage is a sociological organism, and as an organism it must reproduce, by definition. Natural procreation is not the only way the couple can "reproduce". Adoption is no less valid than natural birth.

Please note that I already oppose artificial insemination for any couple, gay, straight or otherwise, for reasons completely unrelated to gay-marriage, so please don't be surprised when you read me opposing the marriage of a gay couple when they plan to use invetro to reproduce.

How are you and everyone else with a similar stance as you hurt or disadvantaged such that we should not extend the advantages to them?

Please take the time to understand my stance before asking me this question, as I do not oppose gay-marriage for hetero's sake.

I want emphasis placed on couples raising children. I want additional support given to these couples so that the divorce rate (and the subsequent juvenile crime/suicide/ teen pregnancy/teen-abortion rate) is drastically reduced.

IMO we are all harmed by perpetuating the existing 50% divorce rate if we simple give gays "marriage" for the sake of "equality", because doing so feels good, but ignores the real problems.
 
Last edited:
Yes....under the Equal protection clause. Anytime the government grants rights or privileges, it cannot under the US Constitution deny those rights to any cognizable group without there being ( at a minimum) a legitimate state interest for doing so. More likely Gays would be analyzed under the second tier of equal protection requiring an "important governmental interest" for the restriction. I doubt there is even a legitimate basis that could be upheld.
 
Back
Top Bottom