• 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
Yes! I look forward to the day this is not even an "issue".
 
teamosil said:
Technically you said they're "entitles" to equality, but I think you meant entitled ;)
Click to expand...

You're going to get left behind if you allow yourself to keep getting caught up on minor typos.

teamosil said:
Ah ok. I think I get your argument now. Adding on more marriages which have the same divorce rate wouldn't increase the divorce rate (it would still be 50%), although you're right it would increase the number of divorces.

But, your arguments about why divorces are bad all rely on the notion that there are children involved. A childless marriage wouldn't trigger the consequences you're listing of divorce, so they're irrelevant. So, we're just talking about marriages with children, which you say you support for both same and opposite sex couples. So if you don't want divorces because they hurt the children, and you go from there to saying you don't want marriages because they can end in divorce, then what exactly are you looking for? No children? Or single parents only? Seems like your argument has kind of worked itself into a corner that doesn't make much sense.
Click to expand...

Monogamous couples raising children. That's who should have access to "marriage", and no one else.
 
Kali said:
Yes! I look forward to the day this is not even an "issue".
Click to expand...

Abortion and interracial marriage are still an issues, you'll be waiting a long time.
 
NEUROSPORT said:
the government needs to be out of marriage.

separation of church and state rings a bell ?
Click to expand...

Not as it applies to marriage, no.

Did you have a coherent thought or were you just trolling again? Just let me know either way.
 
I think he just means that in his opinion it would be superior if government did not give any specific privileges to couples because marriage has traditionally been in religion for the vast majority of religions.
 
Lord Voldemort said:
I think he just means that in his opinion it would be superior if government did not give any specific privileges to couples because marriage has traditionally been in religion for the vast majority of religions.
Click to expand...

Right, and that's an opinion only the grossly ignorant hold.

Give every child rearing couple access to marriage.

Deny all childless couples marriage.

How is that not equal?
 
Last edited:
teamosil said:
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.
Click to expand...

What about minority housing grants?
 
Ethereal said:
What about minority housing grants?
Click to expand...

Am I correct that your argument is that housing grants targetting minorities violate equal protection, therefore we shouldn't apply equal protection in the case of gay marriage either?

If so, that logic is flawed. If we are violating the constitution in one case, that doesn't mean we should just throw away the whole thing, it means we should aim to correct the case where we are violating it.

But, what minority housing grants are you referring to? I'm not aware of any government program that gives housing grants on the basis of race. Can you name the specific program or provide a link to a governmental site detailing it?
 
teamosil said:
Am I correct that your argument is that housing grants targetting minorities violate equal protection, therefore we shouldn't apply equal protection in the case of gay marriage either?

If so, that logic is flawed. If we are violating the constitution in one case, that doesn't mean we should just throw away the whole thing, it means we should aim to correct the case where we are violating it.

But, what minority housing grants are you referring to? I'm not aware of any government program that gives housing grants on the basis of race. Can you name the specific program or provide a link to a governmental site detailing it?
Click to expand...

UNCF came to mind. Not my point though so I'll let him argue it.
 
teamosil said:
The United Negro College Fund isn't a government program, so, how does that relate to the equal protection clause?
Click to expand...

They receive government funding.

Or are you ok with, say, the Boy Scouts discriminating while receiving government funding?
 
It is funny how whenever liberals want something immoral, they claim it to be a precious constitutional right...even though the Constitution doesn't bestow rights, it is simply a check on governmental power. :lol:
 
Last edited:
K-1 said:
It is funny how whenever liberals want something immoral, they claim it to be a precious constitutional right...even though the Constitution doesn't bestow rights, it is simply a check on governmental power. :lol:
Click to expand...

I enjoy how the left typically confuses the right to marry with the right to freely associate.

This confusion is where all the "legislate who we can love" arguments come from.
 
K-1 said:
It is funny how whenever liberals want something immoral, they claim it to be a precious constitutional right...even though the Constitution doesn't bestow rights, it is simply a check on governmental power. :lol:
Click to expand...

How about saying it this way?
Is the government's refusal on recognizing gay marriage a valid exercise of government power? I don't see how this changes the nature of the debate, the issue at hand is pretty much the same.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
They receive government funding.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's true. Do you have a source for that? Could be that they middleman stafford loans and whatnot or something, but I do not believe that the government is giving them any funding to help pay for scholarships that are given out on the basis of race. On their website they say they are funded solely through charitable contributions of individuals, foundations and corporations. The Foundation Center, which studies and rates various charities, says the same. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

Jerry said:
Or are you ok with, say, the Boy Scouts discriminating while receiving government funding?
Click to expand...

Ok, this is just getting silly. That has nothing to do with the topic of whether prohibiting gay marriage violates equal protection.
 
teamosil said:
I don't think that's true. Do you have a source for that? Could be that they middleman stafford loans and whatnot or something, but I do not believe that the government is giving them any funding to help pay for scholarships that are given out on the basis of race. On their website they say they are funded solely through charitable contributions of individuals, foundations and corporations. The Foundation Center, which studies and rates various charities, says the same. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Click to expand...

Not really, no, I haven't researched them in the slightest, they are just who came to mind. As I said, it's Ethereal's point so I'll let him argue it.

teamosil said:
Ok, this is just getting silly. That has nothing to do with the topic of whether prohibiting gay marriage violates equal protection.
Click to expand...

It wasn't supposed to.

It had to do with organizations being allowed to discriminate while receiving public funds.
 
Lord Voldemort said:
Is the government's refusal on recognizing gay marriage a valid exercise of government power?
Click to expand...

Yes.

There is no obvious reason to assume children will result from the union, so there is no compelling interest in violating the gay couple's right to privacy.

It's rather quite noble for the state to recuse itself from relationships it has no business melding in.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
It had to do with organizations being allowed to discriminate while receiving public funds.
Click to expand...

Generally speaking I'd say I'm against organizations being allowed to discriminate while receiving public funds, but there are always exceptions I guess. Like having boyscouts only allow boys and girl scouts only girls doesn't bother me... I would think that would be an example of where separate is not unequal because there is no implied inferiority of either group by having them separate. Although I have to admit, when I was a kid the boy scouts at my school did way, way, cooler stuff than the girl scouts... Like we'd go on a four day canoeing/camping trip and they girl scouts would meet up somewhere and learn to knit for an hour... Probably just a lame girl scout leader though.

I don't know anything about the issue though. Is there more to it? If it's causing some problems somewhere I'd reconsider.
 
Last edited:
NEUROSPORT said:
the government needs to be out of marriage.

separation of church and state rings a bell ?
Click to expand...

You can be married without once going to a church or having a pastor/priest/rabbi etc etc marrying you.

And getting married wasn't always a church thing. In fact marriages through the state was quite common before the church ever even got involved in the marriage business.
 
teamosil said:
Generally speaking I'd say I'm against organizations being allowed to discriminate while receiving public funds, but there are always exceptions I guess. Like having boyscouts only allow boys and girl scouts only girls doesn't bother me... I would think that would be an example of where separate is not unequal because there is no implied inferiority of either group by having them separate. Although I have to admit, when I was a kid the boy scouts at my school did way, way, cooler stuff than the girl scouts... Like we'd go on a four day canoeing/camping trip and they girl scouts would meet up somewhere and learn to knit for an hour... Probably just a lame girl scout leader though.
Click to expand...

So after all that about Brown-v-Board of Ed, you actually DO support 'separate-but-equal' on a case by case basis ;)

If the Girl-Scouts wanted to, they could do everything the Boy-Scouts did, and only the name would be different.

Why a different name? (because you asked 'why not just call civil unions 'marriage' also if they have the same rights) '. Well, the name describes who's in it. "Marriage" is 2 people becoming one flesh, ie; raising children. Civil Union is merely 2 people sharing financial resources.

They are different yet equal under the law, even if unequal in public opinion.
 
Jerry said:
So after all that about Brown-v-Board of Ed, you actually DO support 'separate-but-equal' on a case by case basis ;)

If the Girl-Scouts wanted to, they could do everything the Boy-Scouts did, and only the name would be different.

Why a different name? (because you asked 'why not just call civil unions 'marriage' also if they have the same rights) '. Well, the name describes who's in it. "Marriage" is 2 people becoming one flesh, ie; raising children. Civil Union is merely 2 people sharing financial resources.

They are different yet equal under the law, even if unequal in public opinion.
Click to expand...

I explained the standard from Brown v Board of Ed. They ruled that separate was inherently unequal because there was a perception that a graduate from a black-only school was inferior to a graduate from a white-only school. So, the black students were being disadvantaged by the school segregation. I don't see how the same thing would apply to scouting.

But, regardless, mostly I just don't really see anybody being hurt by the division between boy and girl scouts, where I do see that people would be hurt by school segregation or making a big deal about how gay people can only get 'civil unions' whereas straight people can 'marry'. Culturally the term marriage is endowed with all sorts of positive connotations and whatnot. Excluding gays from that seems discriminatory to me. That said, to me, the name is a relatively minor issue. If they got civil unions that were really exactly the same, I'd be thrilled.
 
teamosil said:
I explained the standard from Brown v Board of Ed. They ruled that separate was inherently unequal because there was a perception that a graduate from a black-only school was inferior to a graduate from a white-only school. So, the black students were being disadvantaged by the school segregation. I don't see how the same thing would apply to scouting.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that Brown only apples to education, and nothing else at all.

teamosil said:
But, regardless, mostly I just don't really see anybody being hurt by the division between boy and girl scouts, where I do see that people would be hurt by school segregation or making a big deal about how gay people can only get 'civil unions' whereas straight people can 'marry'. Culturally the term marriage is endowed with all sorts of positive connotations and whatnot. Excluding gays from that seems discriminatory to me. That said, to me, the name is a relatively minor issue. If they got civil unions that were really exactly the same, I'd be thrilled.
Click to expand...

Well see that's where I'm coming from: I don't see how childless couples are being harmed by the absence of protections meant for child-rearing couples.

They can be forced to testify against each other? So can friends with benefits, common-law married couples and even monogamous engaged couples, so who cares.

Most of the legal buffs are either myths (like hospital visitation) or easily bypassed (like inheritance) to matter at all.

Also, since I don't support hetero-marriage for the sake of convenient legal buffs all in one package, I'm not about to support gay-marriage for the sake of automating a living-will/power-of-attorney/medical-proxy.

The only things uniqu to "marriage" are protections for couples raising children under the "becoming one flesh" concept. Childless couples do not apply.
 
Jerry said:
Keep in mind that Brown only apples to education, and nothing else at all.
Click to expand...

That's not true. That's not how precedent works. In the SCOTUS opinion in Brown they defined how the equal protection clause is to be applied. That's binding for any case that deals with equal protection.

I don't agree with the other stuff you said, but we've been through that part already, so I think you know my take.

Jerry said:
buffs
Click to expand...

You enhancement shammies just think buffs are everything...
 
Last edited:
Gay marraige should be treated legally exactly the same as heterosexual marriage. If one is legal, so is the other. If one is consititutional, then so is the other. Logically, they are identical under every facet other than sexual preference, and since no law can be made denying a person sexually, racially, religiously, etc... then gay marraige is as legal and constitutional as hetero marriage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom