• 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
Jerry said:
On balance, SCOTUS also ruled that women did not in fact have the civil right to vote, which is why we had to create the 19th amendment.

I suspect a similar amendment will have to be created regarding marriage, as there is no right to marry someone of the same gender.
Click to expand...

There is a right to marriage however.
 
jamesrage said:
If we have laws against racial discrimination then that is what I would base my legal objection on. Other than that I would petition to change the law.
Click to expand...

Are you aware that those laws against racial discrimination are founded upon principles set forth in the Constitution?

In effect, you are saying your argument would be based on the Constitution. Your position is untenable.
 
Ikari said:
If it were a right, why is it that gay people are prohibited?
Click to expand...

I do not have the foggiest idea other than peoples get suppressed for what ever reason.
 
winston53660 said:
Good luck on that argument in some fantasy world.
Click to expand...
I see you recognize that you cannot defend your position.

It probably stems from your lack of understanding of the issue, regarding inherent rights and state-granted privileges, your unwillingness to admit that you're wrong, or both.

See, you can repeat your "the SCotUS says marriage is a right" line all you want -- but if all the states repeal their laws, then the legal institution of marriage ceases to exist, regardless of what the SCotUS says.

That being the case, as the legal institution of marriage is a creature of the state, marriage then MUST be a state-specified privilege, as states do not -- indeed can not -- grant rights.

MUST be. MUST be, as in 'this is a logically inescapable conclusion', with your 'the SCotUS says...' nothing more than a fallacious appeal to authority.

Disagree? Then address my questions.
 
Ikari said:
Fundamentally I agree with that. The State did not grant marriage, but rather usurped marriage.

Personally, I see this problem cleared up by removing the contract from marriage and returning it to ward of the Church. The contracts involved in marriage can be offered to people who can freely fill them out and choose for themselves whom they want to manage their estate and papers and such.
Click to expand...
Obviously, the state did this in the interest oif codifying the various aspects of the property rights involved, as is necessary.

What happens to that if the state divorces itself from marriage? How are those property rights then handled?
 
Goobieman said:
I see you recognize that you cannot defend your position.
Click to expand...

You are coming up with a position that will never exist in this life time and most likely no one elses. The state will always recognize marriage for the foreseeable future and with good reason.
 
winston53660 said:
You are coming up with a position that will never exist in this life time and most likely no one elses.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant to the issue.

The fact that marriage wuld no longer exist if the states repealed their marriage laws proves that the legal institution of marriage is a creature of the state, and that marriage then MUST be a state-specified privilege, as states do not -- indeed can not -- grant rights.

Disagree? Then address my questions
 
Goobieman said:
Irrelevant to the issue.

The fact that marriage wuld no longer exist if the states repealed their marriage laws proves that the legal institution of marriage is a creature of the state, and that marriage then MUST be a state-specified privilege, as states do not -- indeed can not -- grant rights.

Disagree? Then address my questions
Click to expand...

Okay fine make your own private world. See if I or anyone else cares. In the mean time I will stick with reality.
 
Goobieman said:
Obviously, the state did this in the interest oif codifying the various aspects of the property rights involved, as is necessary.

What happens to that if the state divorces itself from marriage? How are those property rights then handled?
Click to expand...

All that is separate contract. What happens is basically some contact becomes codified into marriage and are either hard to obtain and file outside of marriage or impossible. Those contracts should be explicitly made separate from the institution of marriage. Otherwise, there is no legitimate reason to deny same-sex marriage.
 
winston53660 said:
I do not have the foggiest idea other than peoples get suppressed for what ever reason.
Click to expand...

For whatever reason, sure. I mean history is full of examples of people being held down. But if SCOTUS already ruled that marriage is a right, then it's over. It's like abortion, SCOTUS ruled that one ok; the States cannot forbid it. If SCOTUS ruled marriage a right for real, then the States could not forbid same sex marriage. But the States can deny it and the SCOTUS isn't getting all up in arms over it. So obviously, they haven't said it's a full out right.
 
Ikari said:
All that is separate contract. What happens is basically some contact becomes codified into marriage and are either hard to obtain and file outside of marriage or impossible. Those contracts should be explicitly made separate from the institution of marriage. Otherwise, there is no legitimate reason to deny same-sex marriage.
Click to expand...

Id like to see the State forbidden from using the word "marriage" and leave it to religion, culture to denote it. I do think if the were to do that civil unions should have all the rights with the contract of marriage.
 
Ikari said:
For whatever reason, sure. I mean history is full of examples of people being held down. But if SCOTUS already ruled that marriage is a right, then it's over. It's like abortion, SCOTUS ruled that one ok; the States cannot forbid it. If SCOTUS ruled marriage a right for real, then the States could not forbid same sex marriage. But the States can deny it and the SCOTUS isn't getting all up in arms over it. So obviously, they haven't said it's a full out right.
Click to expand...

I the case of abortion it is a full right to privacy.
 
winston53660 said:
Id like to see the State forbidden from using the word "marriage" and leave it to religion, culture to denote it. I do think if the were to do that civil unions should have all the rights with the contract of marriage.
Click to expand...

You'd have to get rid of the marriage license. I'm not opposed to that. The contracts which come with marriage can and should be offered separately. Anyone should be able to detail any part of their estate/papers/etc and be able to specify (including that which would eventually allow hospital visitation, estate control, etc) every aspect of their life and property. If there is no marriage license, marriage is returned fully to the Church. Everything that marriage does can be handled through separate contract. And if those contracts need dissolving...we have a court system for that.
 
winston53660 said:
I the case of abortion it is a full right to privacy.
Click to expand...

In contention to Right to Life.

The government isn't necessarily interested in protecting privacy rights. But the point is the same. If SCOTUS really ruled marriage is a right, then the States cannot prohibit same sex couples from engaging in it.
 
Ikari said:
In contention to Right to Life.

The government isn't necessarily interested in protecting privacy rights. But the point is the same. If SCOTUS really ruled marriage is a right, then the States cannot prohibit same sex couples from engaging in it.
Click to expand...

Loving vs. Virginia did determine marriage was a right of man
 
winston53660 said:
And your point is?
Click to expand...

Resting your argument on "because SCOTUS says so" can backfire, because SCOTUS doesn't always support what you like.

winston53660 said:
never mind I know about your misogyny.
Click to expand...

Where you and Felicity were both habitual troublemakers, at least she could form a rational argument now and then.
 
Jerry said:
Resting your argument on "because SCOTUS says so" can backfire, because SCOTUS doesn't always support what you like.
[/QOUTE]

If you and your army want to take up marriage being a right with SCOTUS go for it.


Where you and Felicity were both habitual troublemakers, at least she could form a rational argument now and then.
Click to expand...

I actually have respect for her.
Click to expand...
 
winston53660 said:
Loving vs. Virginia did determine marriage was a right of man
Click to expand...

Obviously not because it isn't held in practice that way. If SCOTUS truly ruled that way, there is no debate because the States could not deny same sex couples the marriage license. So you can claim SCOTUS says whatever, but reality is saying something different.
 
Ikari said:
Obviously not because it isn't held in practice that way. If SCOTUS truly ruled that way, there is no debate because the States could not deny same sex couples the marriage license. So you can claim SCOTUS says whatever, but reality is saying something different.
Click to expand...

Well gays are getting married in all 50 states and some of them recognize them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom