• 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!

Gay marriage should be a constitutional right in America

Gay marriage should be legal in America

  • Yes

    Votes: 43 69.4%

  • No

    Votes: 19 30.6%
  • Total voters
    62
Redress said:
Are you saying a baby is able to enter into a legal contract? This is almost as stupid as "Obama is not a natural born citizen".
Click to expand...

You just can't stand it that Barry isn't NBC..... but I degress.

If Marrige is a Constitutional right it must apply equally to all citizens, correct? Please answer that question.... it's a simple question that has one of two answers, yes or no.
 
BDBoop said:
Why absolutely no to the constitutional level?

There will always be more important things to discuss when people want something back-burnered. Why would you wish for gay people not to have the full marital rights that straights do?
Click to expand...


My philosophy is that marriage, "sacred" - for life,etc is for the man and the woman; not two of the same sex or a man and his horse....
I see nothing "gay" about two homosexuals...Their "wiring" is messed up - no fault of their own..And homosexuals MUST NOT be persecuted as they have been in the past..
This was WRONG.
But I feel that marriage is a sacred pact between a man and a woman - it has always been that way..
And YES, I do know that things always being a certain way does not make them right..
But the institution of marriage must be respected.
I'm sure that most would agree that we have many more important things to do...reforms in almost every area...
 
Last edited:
Crunch said:
If Marrige is a Constitutional right it must apply equally to all citizens, correct?
Click to expand...

No, since we have a graduated system of rights. 17 year olds do not have the right to vote. Yet at the age of 18 it must apply equally.
 
"Their wiring is messed up"? Seriously??

And a man and his horse. Could you be any more insulting.

earthworm said:
My philosophy is that marriage, "sacred" - for life,etc is for the man and the woman; not two of the same sex or a man and his horse....
I see nothing "gay" about two homosexuals...Their "wiring" is messed up - no fault of their own..And homosexuals MUST NOT be persecuted as they have been in the past..
This was WRONG.
But I feel that marriage is a sacred pact between a man and a woman - it has always been that way..
And YES, I do know that things always being a certain way does not make them right..
But the institution of marriage must be respected.
I'm sure that most would agree that we have many more important things to do...reforms in almost every area...
Click to expand...
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Marriage isn't a Constitutional right and should never become one.

Same-sex marriage, however, should absolutely be legal.
Click to expand...
I fully agree with the first part, but disagree with the second portion.
Too many consider marriage to be a joke, not a serious thing......maybe I am wrong...so be it.
 
I don't think it should be a constitutional rights.

My opinion is that the constitution should address broad principals more than specific things.
 
winston53660 said:
No, since we have a graduated system of rights. 17 year olds do not have the right to vote. Yet at the age of 18 it must apply equally.
Click to expand...

Good point.... thanx.

So I'll change my example.

If marriage to any person you want to marry is a Constitutional right, then there should be no problem with having 2, or 3, or 25 wives of husbands.

My whole point is that marriage is not a right, it's a civil contract, and it has traditionally been between a man and a woman.

The reason for this poll is because the court just struck down a voter approved State Constitutional Amendment in California on US Constitutional grounds. I have yet to see anything in the Constitution that gives the Fed any right or power over the institution of marriage.

BTW…. If you read the decision of the court it is obvious that the judge did not use any constitutional arguments, but was legislating from the bench in favor of his own sexual preferences.
 
Crunch said:
Good point.... thanx.

So I'll change my example.

If marriage to any person you want to marry is a Constitutional right, then there should be no problem with having 2, or 3, or 25 wives of husbands.

My whole point is that marriage is not a right, it's a civil contract, and it has traditionally been between a man and a woman.

The reason for this poll is because the court just struck down a voter approved State Constitutional Amendment in California on US Constitutional grounds. I have yet to see anything in the Constitution that gives the Fed any right or power over the institution of marriage.

BTW…. If you read the decision of the court it is obvious that the judge did not use any constitutional arguments, but was legislating from the bench in favor of his own sexual preferences.
Click to expand...

Actually, if you read the ruling, you will see it is clearly based on US constitutional law.

The Polygamy, Incest, Bestiality, pedophilia red herrings have been shown to be false so many times it is hilarious people keep brining them up. Let me refer you to a nice post on this topic from a conservative made today:

Zyphlin said:
To help make this a bit more specific for people complaining about the polygamist stuff, so you know...maybe you can actually make an argument for it that addresses peoples points.

In regards to equal protection there's two arguments being made.

One held by myself, riv, and perhaps others, that this is a gender thing. Gender is already a defined status under the EPC that is of mid level protection requiring important state interest and substantial proof.

One held by others is that sexual orientation should be covered under EPC. They tend to feel one of two ways:

  • 1. They feel that they should be there under the minimum scrutiny level "Rational Basis" and that even under that there is not enough proof to show that the the discrimination is rationally able to be shown to serve a legitimate state interest.

    2. They feel that they should be there under the Quasi-Suspect middle tier at the very least, requiring an equal amount of proof and need as gender does. And possibly even arguing equal to the top tier "Strict Scrutiny". They feel this way because there's a large amount of legitimate evidence that suggests homosexual orientation is, in many if not most cases, a natural occuring thing that one is born with akin to race or sex.

Finally, the argument from both in regards to equal protection and why it does not account for polygamists is as generall as follows. "How many people" is not a protected status of some sort under the EPC, and saying "Its not equal that he can marry one person but I can't marry two" is not evidence of inequality based on a protected status of any kind.

Additionally, there is a far stronger argument for state interest in preventing polygamists marriages then there is in gay marriages. And it can be made without the typical hyperbolic stereotypes of pedophilia or incest. The implimentation of polygamist marriages opens the door for a significant hinderance on the U.S. and States court systems due to the numerous issues surrounding polygamy. Take for example the ability for the spouse to have the final say over health decisions...when there is multiple spouses if they disagree then this becomes a legal issue that will bog down the courts. The only alternative to this would be to be able to designate certain spouses as somehow special and having more of the benefits than others, but that in and of itself creates a government imposed unequal designation. Additionally it opens up a far more glaring and damaging issue for the government in regards to the tax abilities regarding marriage by allowign people to create extremely long chains of individuals all connected with regards to the tax benefits where as the current "two people" limit provides a reasonable limit on the connections that keeps its impact from reaching the point where it would reach government interest.

So to truly use the polygamist argument against people making the EPC claims to suggest they're hypocritical one must:

1. Provide a legitimate argument as to how and why Polygamy should be or is a protected EPC class of equal or greater level to the class they're suggesting is the reason for same sex marriage is.

2. Provide a legitimate argument as to why the arguments for government interest against polygamy are incorrect.

3. Provide a legitimate argument as to why there is as pertinent of arguments for government interest against same sex marriage as there is for polygamy.

Enjoy.
Click to expand...
 
Groucho said:
Blah blah blah, yeah, we've all heard it before.

Get used to it, it's going to happen, it already has in many places and somehow it's been perfectly legal and accepted.

Come join us in the 21st century.
Click to expand...

Do you know how difficult this is for a man born in the previous century, raised in the 17th century, educated in the 18th century, and has a comfort zone in the 21st centruy.....
And, simply as something is 21st century does not make it better or more right..
 
Crunch said:
If you are going to call marriage a Constitutional right, then it has to apply equally to every citizen..... including a new born baby.

Any one want to re-think their yes vote?
Click to expand...

Voting and carrying a gun are both Constitutional rights. Doesn't seem to be a problem with only applying those rights to adults.
 
earthworm said:
I fully agree with the first part, but disagree with the second portion.
Too many consider marriage to be a joke, not a serious thing......maybe I am wrong...so be it.
Click to expand...

I agree. But the people who are fighting for their right to marry are not the ones treating marriage as a joke.
 
Crunch said:
BTW…. If you read the decision of the court it is obvious that the judge did not use any constitutional arguments, but was legislating from the bench in favor of his own sexual preferences.
Click to expand...

This statement makes me doubt that you read the judge's decision.
 
Crunch said:
You just can't stand it that Barry isn't NBC..... but I degress.

If Marrige is a Constitutional right it must apply equally to all citizens, correct? Please answer that question.... it's a simple question that has one of two answers, yes or no.
Click to expand...

You mean like the right to vote? You do realize that you're suggesting infants are allowed to vote, right?
 
Crunch said:
My whole point is that marriage is not a right, it's a civil contract, and it has traditionally been between a man and a woman.
Click to expand...
The US Supreme Court disagrees with you since they have declared it a right.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Marriage isn't a Constitutional right and should never become one.

Same-sex marriage, however, should absolutely be legal.
Click to expand...

Partly agree --- it's not Constitution and never should be... same sex "marriage" no. It's not a marriage, call it something else --- civil union, same sex union... get creative. But it's not marriage, but should have the same priveledges as a heterosexual marriage in the eyes of the law. Then I could agree to it and support it.
 
Ockham said:
Partly agree --- it's not Constitution and never should be... same sex "marriage" no. It's not a marriage, call it something else --- civil union, same sex union... get creative. But it's not marriage, but should have the same priveledges as a heterosexual marriage in the eyes of the law. Then I could agree to it and support it.
Click to expand...

Separate but equal, right?
 
BDBoop said:
All in favor, all opposed. I'm not putting any other options. Don't vote if you can't choose one or the other.
Click to expand...

Marriage in general isn't - why just focus on gay marriage?

Unlike many other countries - ours does not govern marriage via the constitution within the federal government at all. It's a state-by-state basis, not a federal issue.

The federal government has been granted no jurisdiction over our personal-relationships *at all* - who we're friends with, how we're related, who can marry, who can't - our government is strictly hands and opinions off of *any* "personal" issues what so ever in large part because of the first amendment which bars Congress from passing laws which favor or conflict with religion.

Since marriage/gay marriage is strongly religious to many - if Congress passed a law which said "yes, allow it" then that would directly be in conflict and thus be governing religions and thus is actually unconstitutional.

Unfortunately - it's a state by state issue . . . which sucks but that's the way the cookie crumbles.
 
Last edited:
Yes because Im tired of hearing about it. To me at least, it's a issue that matters a lot less than both sides make it out to be. If gay people want the right to be unhappy and never have sex ever again that's their damn business.
 
rivrrat said:
The US Supreme Court disagrees with you since they have declared it a right.
Click to expand...

The US Supreme Court has also specifically said that state laws regarding same-sex marriage do not implicate any justiciable federal issues. See Baker v. Nelson. The Court's dismissal of the challenge to a state law prohibiting same-sex marriage constituted a ruling on the merits, and as such should have been the controlling precedent in the California case. Judge Walker took it upon himself to disregard the Court's guidance.
As for your statement that the Court has declared marriage to be a right, I assume you are referring to Loving v. Virginia. The ruling in that case was based upon Virginia's use of a suspect classification (race) to determine eligibility for marriage. That is not the case here. No federal court has ever found sexual orientation to be a suspect classification. I believe that only 2 states (California and Hawaii) have done so. The issue is discussed in greater depth here.
Don't get me wrong, here. I'm not commenting on the morality of gay marriage or whether a ban is good or bad public policy. My point is simply that not everything is, can, or should be addressed either at the federal level or through the Constitution. I personally do not care one way or the other what the law is in California. I don't live there and it is no concern of mine. What I do care about is the erosion of our federal system which results in national policies regarding matters which should be left to the states.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom