• 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
No, just use a different word.

Why? If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck... why make up a new word to describe it?

You have to have a better reason than the ones that have been promoted so far. Besides, people who get married aren't going to listen to you. You can't make it illegal for them to call themselves married if they want to, and then what do you do?
 
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.
Walker took it upon himself based on decisions that SCOTUS has made since Baker v. Nelson.
 
Walker took it upon himself based on decisions that SCOTUS has made since Baker v. Nelson.

No Supreme Court decision since Baker v. Nelson has directly addressed the issue of state prohibition of same-sex marriage. That is the point. It has been suggested that Lawrence v. Texas may signal a shift in the Court's opinion regarding the appropriate legal status of same-sex relationships, but the Court chose not to address the issue in that case and limited itself to the ruling on state regulation of sexual conduct. I would say that it is not inconceivable to think that the Court could both prohibit state criminalization of sodomy and affirm the states' right to regulate the legal status accorded to personal relationships. The distinction here is between private interactions between consenting adults and societal recognition of a legal relationship with its attendant public rights and responsibilities.
 
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.

Sexual orientation is irrelevant. Gender is. And it's blatant gender discrimination.
 
Why? If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...





...... we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family Anatidae on our hands.
 
All in favor, all opposed. I'm not putting any other options. Don't vote if you can't choose one or the other.

The question is unclear.

The title of the thread relates to gay marriage being a Constitutional right. So I voted no.

But I voted too soon, and then saw that the poll just asked if it should be legal. To this I would have replied "yes".

I'm not really sure which question you intended to be answered.
 
All in favor, all opposed. I'm not putting any other options. Don't vote if you can't choose one or the other.

Heterosexual marriage isn't a Constitutional right... but there is nothing that opposes it either, and there shouldn't be for homosexual marriage either.
 
I got in a fight with the edit option. :(

The question is unclear.

The title of the thread relates to gay marriage being a Constitutional right. So I voted no.

But I voted too soon, and then saw that the poll just asked if it should be legal. To this I would have replied "yes".

I'm not really sure which question you intended to be answered.
 
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.

Do you REALLY want to start this again?
 
No, just voicing my opinion :) It is a poll isn't it?

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. ;)
 
Btw... for those of you still focusing on the polygamy red herring, here's an old post of mine that I have used to demonstrate how the polygamy argument is irrelevant:


First. let us take a look at the difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals. The striking difference is obvious. Homosexuals have a sexual orientation towards those of the same sex, whereas heterosexuals have a sexual orientation towards those of the opposite sex. Why would a heterosexual woman want to marry a man? Sexual orientation. Why would a homosexual man want to marry a man? Sexual orientation. Clearly, from an individual standpoint, this is a, if not the main reason for one wanting to marry a specific other. Love, attraction, emotion. Now, this does not justify gay marriage being validated, and, in fact is a weak argument that I never make. Love, attraction, and emotion does not benefit the state, which is why marriage exists. However, polygamy does not fit well in the criteria that I have identified. There is no polygamous sexual orientation. Polygamy is, typically, a heterosexual orientation, covered already. However, being that there is no polygamous sexual orientation, using this, a mainstay of the individual reason for marriage, will not work or apply. Therefore, polygamy from an individual standpoint, does not meet the same criteria for marriage as do homosexuals or heterosexuals. Lack of orientation.

Now, we move into the societal realm. Government supports marriage for a few reasons. The productive rearing of children is most important. Creating a stable family life is also key: it adds to the positive potential for healthy children, but it also creates healthy adults. There is plenty of evidence to support the theory that those who live in a healthy, stable, committed relationship, are happier, healthier, and are more productive members of society. These are all things that benefit the state. Research shows that, regardless of sexual orientation, gay or straight, folks who live in these kinds of committed relationships, do better, and rear children better, than those who do not. This is regardless of sexual orientation. This is the second piece of the argument that will, eventually win the day for gay marriage. Polygamy does not offer the same benefits. And the answer to "why" is simple, and is psychological in nature. Jealousy, rivalry, and inconsistency. Just like my argument that psychology cannot be separated from economics, hence, because of greed, pure forms of both socialism and libertarianism are destined to be complete failures, neither can human psychology be separated from this issue. What is the number one cause of divorce? Adultery. Why? Jealousy and rivalry. In a multi-partner marriage, it would be impossible for their not to be some sort of hierarchy, and even if this is agreed upon, one cannot eliminate one's emotions. With this type of emotional instability at the familial structure's core, a healthy, committed relationship, similar to that of a single partner marriage, could not be obtained. Further, the inconsistency in caretaking responsibilities and in child rearing responsibilities, compounded by the hierarchies and rivalries will harm the children, affecting their functioning. We already see some of this in divorced families, where inconsistent rules, non-existent co-parenting, and rivalries, negatively affect children.

Lastly, though there is plenty of research that supports both heterosexual and homosexual unions as being beneficial, there is none that supports polygamy.

All of this shows how there is not correlation nor slippery slope from homosexual to polygamous marriage. Polygamy, for the reasons I identified, is not only a very different animal than homosexual marriage, but has none of the similar benefits to the state that the government currently sees marriage as.

Polygamy as a reaction to homosexual marriage is a smokescreen and an invalid comparison.
 
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.
 
Btw... for those of you still focusing on the polygamy red herring, here's an old post of mine that I have used to demonstrate how the polygamy argument is irrelevant:

I posted Zyphlin's excellent legal explanation of why from a legal point of view polygamy is irrelevant in this thread as well. Together, they pretty much destroy any hope of the polygamy argument.
 
I posted Zyphlin's excellent legal explanation of why from a legal point of view polygamy is irrelevant in this thread as well. Together, they pretty much destroy any hope of the polygamy argument.

I saw. That's why I pulled my post from the cobwebs. Combined, they demonstrate why, from legal, social, and psychological standpoint, the polygamy argument is nothing but a red herring. They should be combined and posted whenever someone delves into that form of stupidity.
 
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.

That would be easy to work around. Government cannot infringe on a marriage between two individuals of the same gender.

However, the constitution does detail things that the government must do, like provide for defense.
 
The irony...

What's ironic ?

Groucho said:
Why? If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck... why make up a new word to describe it?

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

What's wrong with it? It's simple:

Marriage = man + woman + legal recognition

<fill in the space> = man + man / woman + woman + legal recognition
 
I posted Zyphlin's excellent legal explanation of why from a legal point of view polygamy is irrelevant in this thread as well. Together, they pretty much destroy any hope of the polygamy argument.

I was going to suggest that any discussion of polygamy fits the category of a slippery slope argument, but any time I start thinking about slippery slopes my mind starts to wander into other realms and I lose my train of thought.
 
I think straight people should trade marriage rights to the gays. In return, we get.........

FREEDOM!!!!!
1zgximo.jpg
 
In favor? Yes but going further, the state shoudlnt be involved in marriage at all. Its time to nuke all the benefits associated with it, people shouldnt need the permission of the state to exercise freedom of association.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom