Gay marriage should be a constitutional right in America

Ockham said:

What's ironic ?

Marriage is between a man and a woman... the union of two homosexuals is not marriage. Seems simple to understand.

Click to expand...

Marriage is whatever we decide it is. It used to be between only a man and a woman of the same race. And in some places it was between a man and many women. We have redefined marriage many times over the course of...

Aw, what's the use? Arguing logic and history with you won't change your mind.

Groucho said:

Marriage is whatever we decide it is. ....

Click to expand...

Are you a judge? Seems like they're the ones who are making the decision about what marriage is.

OT: Welcome aboard!

politics3 said:

I believe that their shouldn't be a law for or against marriage! The constitution does not give a description of marriage, so marry whoever you want.

Click to expand...

Gay marriage should not be a right.

Then again, neither should straight marriage.

Gardener said:

I always love it when people answer their own question.

Click to expand...

Simplicity is sorely lacking in many things... if it's not simple, it's usually FUBAR.

Can't really vote on this....

I think marriage laws as they are unconstitutional.

That said I don't think I'd necessarily agree nor support writing specifically gay marriage into the constitution.

Nor do I personally think that marriage should be a constitutional right even though it is.

I do think same sex couples should be able to form into whatever union the government sponsors between two people; if the government wants to call it marriage, then its a marriage, if they want to call them unions, its unions, but it should be uniformed.

I think the word marriage should be thrown out of government entirely, because as it stands there are distinctly two different definitions of the same word...the legal definition that has zero to do with religion or any religious tradition or else it'd be unconstitutional and then the religious/societal definition that differs between belief systems.

Groucho said:

Marriage is whatever we decide it is. It used to be between only a man and a woman of the same race. And in some places it was between a man and many women. We have redefined marriage many times over the course of...

Aw, what's the use? Arguing logic and history with you won't change your mind.

Click to expand...

Excellent point - it should be left up to the states to define what is and is not marriage - and it should NOT be left up to activist or conservative judges to overturn the will of the people of that state.

digsbe said:

Gay marriage is not a Constitutional right, nor should gay marriage ever be legalized. The homosexual union is not marriage nor can it properly fit the definition of the legal heterosexual one. If anything, civil unions identical to marriage would be acceptable.

Click to expand...

It doesn't involve heterosexuals. It would be different. Marriage and it's laws should be for everyone. Gay or straight.

rivrrat said:

The US Supreme Court disagrees with you since they have declared it a right.

Click to expand...

You'll have to back that up with some proof.

RightOfCenter said:

See Loving v. Virginia for more on that, Crunch.

Click to expand...

U.S. Supreme Court
LOVING v. VIRGINIA, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
388 U.S. 1
LOVING ET UX. v. VIRGINIA.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA.
No. 395.
Argued April 10, 1967.
Decided June 12, 1967.



Virginia's statutory scheme to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications held to violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 4-12.

Click to expand...

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Sure you have the right case? The word sex is not in that ruling, so you’ll have to point out the pertinent part.

Orion said:

The federal constitution defines what the federal government cannot do. It has nothing to do with granted rights, but rights that may not be infringed upon.

Marriage does not qualify. Marriage licensing is a privilege granted at the state level. Marriage should never be part of the constitution because the way it's defined, and its limitations, have been subject to change for centuries.

Click to expand...

That is totally backwards. The Constitution limits government to just the enumerated powers listed in the Constitution........ those powers and no other.

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Click to expand...

Zyphlin said:

Can't really vote on this....

I think marriage laws as they are unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

They are on the federal level, but States have the right to amend their Constitutions however the people of those States decide. The reason the founders limited federal powers were so the States could have different laws depending on what the people wanted for their individual State. If you didn’t like the laws in your State you could move to another State that more closely followed your personal beliefs. If the federal government takes the power to “homogenize every State’s laws it will take that option away from, well, everybody.

That said I don't think I'd necessarily agree nor support writing specifically gay marriage into the constitution.

Nor do I personally think that marriage should be a constitutional right even though it is.

Click to expand...

I still haven't seen any proof of that as of this post.

I do think same sex couples should be able to form into whatever union the government sponsors between two people; if the government wants to call it marriage, then its a marriage, if they want to call them unions, its unions, but it should be uniformed.

I think the word marriage should be thrown out of government entirely, because as it stands there are distinctly two different definitions of the same word...the legal definition that has zero to do with religion or any religious tradition or else it'd be unconstitutional and then the religious/societal definition that differs between belief systems.

Click to expand...

The people of each State have the right to control, or not control marriage as they see fit.

CaptainCourtesy said:

Your comment, "The homosexual union is not marriage nor can it properly fit the definition of the legal heterosexual one," sounded like a challenge, to me. Perhaps I was mistaken.

Click to expand...

Forgive me if the wording seemed too strong or provocative. It is my belief that marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. As I said in my post, I can support civil unions with identical marriage benefits. I cannot support calling something a marriage that is not a marriage (in my opinion).

digsbe said:

Forgive me if the wording seemed too strong or provocative. It is my belief that marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. As I said in my post, I can support civil unions with identical marriage benefits. I cannot support calling something a marriage that is not a marriage (in my opinion).

Click to expand...

Thats a separate but equal institution. You can't do that. The only way that would fly is if you took marriage out of the government all together, and only offer civil unions to everybody.

No. As it should not be a Constitutional right for male/female marriage. It is a State issue.

Your Star said:

Thats a separate but equal institution. You can't do that. The only way that would fly is if you took marriage out of the government all together, and only offer civil unions to everybody.

Click to expand...

But the homosexual union itself cannot be marriage because marriage is a union between a man and woman. You can't define apples as oranges because the apples want to be oranges.

digsbe said:

But the homosexual union itself cannot be marriage because marriage is a union between a man and woman. You can't define apples as oranges because the apples want to be oranges.

Click to expand...

Says who? Religion, well the government is separate from religion, and the government can define marriage anyway they want.

Your Star said:

Says who? Religion, well the government is separate from religion, and the government can define marriage anyway they want.

Click to expand...

And when the government has a vote and turns to the people, religious beliefs and feelings are equal to secular ones. Most people say they support the "traditional" definition of marriage, not the "Christian" definition of marriage.

digsbe said:

And when the government has a vote and turns to the people, religious beliefs and feelings are equal to secular ones. Most people say they support the "traditional" definition of marriage, not the "Christian" definition of marriage.

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter, if the people voted for Christianity to be the official government religion then that would be shot down by any court also. The majority opinion does not matter in this case.

Your Star said:

Doesn't matter, if the people voted for Christianity to be the official government religion then that would be shot down by any court also. The majority opinion does not matter in this case.

Click to expand...

The problem is that very vote is unconstitutional. However, people have every right to vote and hold convictions because of their religious beliefs. The majority opinion does matter. It would be illegal if they wording behind defining marriage was "Marriage is a union between a man and woman because the Bible says so." However, this is not the case. People who hold opinions based on religious beliefs are entitled to those opinions and have every right to vote in regards to their opinions just as much as the person who beliefs that there is no God and therefore all things permissible by society are moral. At the ballot box do people need to check a cube that says "I am religious and my convictions are base don religion, therefore my opinion shall not be valid or worthy of representation"? You can't void someone's vote or opinion because of the source of that opinion/belief.

Your Star said:

Says who? Religion, well the government is separate from religion, and the government can define marriage anyway they want.

Click to expand...

Please show where in The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net that the US government has any enumerated power over any marriage.

Woulda's, coulda's, or shoulda's don't mean ****. The power has to be delegated to the government by the Constitution before the government can exercise any authority over who can marry who.

digsbe said:

The problem is that very vote is unconstitutional. However, people have every right to vote and hold convictions because of their religious beliefs. The majority opinion does matter. It would be illegal if they wording behind defining marriage was "Marriage is a union between a man and woman because the Bible says so." However, this is not the case. People who hold opinions based on religious beliefs are entitled to those opinions and have every right to vote in regards to their opinions just as much as the person who beliefs that there is no God and therefore all things permissible by society are moral. At the ballot box do people need to check a cube that says "I am religious and my convictions are base don religion, therefore my opinion shall not be valid or worthy of representation"? You can't void someone's vote or opinion because of the source of that opinion/belief.

Click to expand...

The problem is not that people are voting because of there religious beliefs, the problem is that the law banning SSM is based on religion. There is no reason besides religion to ban SSM. Logically there is no argument. Laws based on religion are illegal, and thats the fact.

Crunch said:

Please show where in The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net that the US government has any enumerated power over any marriage.

Woulda's, coulda's, or shoulda's don't mean ****. The power has to be delegated to the government by the Constitution before the government can exercise any authority over who can marry who.

Click to expand...

The 14th amendment says that every citizen has equal protection under the law, only allowing heterosexual people to marry is not equal protection under the law.

Crunch said:

They are on the federal level, but States have the right to amend their Constitutions however the people of those States decide. The reason the founders limited federal powers were so the States could have different laws depending on what the people wanted for their individual State. If you didn’t like the laws in your State you could move to another State that more closely followed your personal beliefs. If the federal government takes the power to “homogenize every State’s laws it will take that option away from, well, everybody.

Click to expand...

I'll start this off by telling you Crunch my view on same sex marriage, not "gay marriage", is different than many others (only other I see regularly go from this route on this forum is rivvrat). I see it not as a sexual orientation, homosexual thing. I see it as gender discrimination. Men can marry women, but women can't marry women, and vise versa. This is a situation where a class of people that have been proven to be covered by the Equal Protection Clause at the middle-tier of scrutiny are prohibited from doing something others in their broader classification can do.

So, on that basis, yes I do feel its unconstitutional. I do not feel that any of the arguments voiced in courts so far suggesting why its in the states interest to discriminate with regards to same sex marriages reaches the required evidentiary level of "substantial" evidence to provide the necessary level of state interest, specifically "important" state interest.

I understand if you agree, but you should be aware of what exactly my argument is and that its different then mosts.

I still haven't seen any proof of that as of this post.

Click to expand...

Its been shown in numerous threads, including ones you've been involved in, where the courts have found that there is a constitutional right to marriage. Now you may disagree with the courts decision, you may disagree with peoples interpritation of those decisions, but don't act like you don't know what I'm talking about.

This thread is asking for peoples opinion. Its mine that based on the numerous court cases that are regularly quoted in regards to marriage that its been established constitutionally that there is a "right" to marriage. I don't even necessarily AGREE with said right, but until there's substantial evidence of a case overturning this I'm not going to be an "activist" and ignore constitutional law as created by those the constitution has placed in charge of interpriting it.

The people of each State have the right to control, or not control marriage as they see fit.

Click to expand...

Save for when said state law is in violation of the constitution.