• 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!

Should same-sex marriage be left to the States?

Should same-sex marriage be left to the States?

  • Yes

    Votes: 18 30.0%
  • No

    Votes: 42 70.0%
  • I'm really not sure

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • What's marriage?

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    60
Opposite sex marriage is not truly "fundamental" to basic survival either, particularly not legal marriage.

SCOTUS disagrees with your opinion, in Loving v. Virginia.

People have children out of legal wedlock all the time.
Yes, and in America these couples brake up their children's home far more frequently than their married counterparts. An argument could be made for criminalizing procreation out of wedlock as child abuse since the damage is clearly documented.

And people legally allowed to marry now both cannot and do not want to have/raise children.
I said: "reasonable expectation". I used that term for a reason. I think now you may get it.
 
The 'same-sex' variety of marriage is not "fundamental to [human's] basic survival".

The reason why opposite-sex marriage is "fundamental to [human's] basic survival" is due to opposite sex couple's reasonable expectation of procreation. Since the state's compelling interest in marriage is the raising and socializing of children, the state therefore has precedent to establish laws regulating marriage.

No procreation can be reasonably expected from 2 people of the same sex, so the state has no compelling interest to regulate those relationships. As per the right to free association, the state is not allowed to ban relationships which are not otherwise harmful, so gays are free to live together, as they should be.
Since when do civil rights have to be qualified as "fundamental to basic survival?"

Marriage isn't a prerequisite to procreation, nor is fertility a prerequisite to marriage. I suppose infertile couples could hypothetically be barred from marriage as well?

Debatable, the better question being what possible compelling interest does the State hold in barring same sex couples from entering into a legal contract?
 
This is exactly how I feel about the right to keep and carry personal 'arms', so I empathize.

Big difference there, as only the right to keep and bear arms, is in our constitution, so far. Many ignore that simple fact.
 
Since when do civil rights have to be qualified as "fundamental to basic survival?"

Marriage isn't a prerequisite to procreation, nor is fertility a prerequisite to marriage. I suppose infertile couples could hypothetically be barred from marriage as well?

Debatable, the better question being what possible compelling interest does the State hold in barring same sex couples from entering into a legal contract?

The same as for not allowing polygamy, tradition and state law. Business 'partnership' contracts have no such provisions, limitting them to only two consenting adults.
 
Yes, and in America these couples brake up their children's home far more frequently than their married counterparts. An argument could be made for criminalizing procreation out of wedlock as child abuse since the damage is clearly documented.
In my time on this site, I'd be hard pressed to find a quote farther detached from reality.
 
And you would be wrong. It is about the state showing how such separations actually are helping to meet an important state interest. Plus, someone must challenge those things in order for them to reach the SC, who makes the final decision. The SC determines what is constitutional or not. It is highly likely that the SC will decide that same sex marriages do not meet any important or even reasonably relate to a state interest.

That argument is insane, as it then makes EVERYTHING and ANYTHING into a "constitutional" federal power, as obviously all things legislated at any gov't level relate to a "state interest", or they would not be "state" law to begin with. Just because something "is" does not elevate it to a "federal" constitutional status.
 
Being both a married service member and a military spouse, I absolutely agree with this.

So marriage is needed for such thing? I really don't care if you are married or if you are a military spouse, btw

The majority of people and the law do not agree with you.

So appeals to popularity mean something to you? Just so know, the failure of marriage is growing my numbers. :)

And there are many more things that marriage does with one contract that would otherwise take many. It is very unlikely to go away anytime in the near future. Legal marriage is good for our society, including those involved, the legal system when it comes to family law, and government programs.

Yes, that is what you keep saying..
 
No i think it should be legal everywhere. Civil rights should not be a state issue.

It is only a matter of civil rights if same-sex civil unions are not endowed with the same entitlements as heterosexual civil unions. Calling heterosexual civil unions a "marriage" and same-sex civil unions something else is not necessarily a civil rights violation.
 
Since when do civil rights have to be qualified as "fundamental to basic survival?"

Marriage is a government contract. All this civil rights nonsense needs to stop.
 
I voted YES as marriage has always been a province of state law.
 
In my time on this site, I'd be hard pressed to find a quote farther detached from reality.

And you would be wrong.
 
I suppose that with all the gay and tranny propaganda being pumped out on ABC,CBS,NBC,FOX and other liberal entertainment channels there will be lots of idiots to support legalizing gay marriage.

your humor is appreciated.
 
Do you not understand level of scrutiny? The state(s) have shown an important state interest in keeping gender separation for those things. They do not have any such interest or proof to be supporting such interest in same sex marriage bans.

The will of the people through their votes and actions of the state legisalture are no longer to be considered? Only a wise judge may have the final word? Does that judge now have the power to decide that the constitution need not specifically address these things, to make them become federal powers? This 'logic' gives the federal gov't, actually only the judical branch of it, supreme power over ALL legal issues, without that pesky need to refer to the acual words of our constitution. In other words, if a wise judge, does not see "interest" in the law it is nullified or amended to fit the "interest" of only that judge?
 
Last edited:
Look at this from a constitutional stand point. Marriage is a public record. The full faith and credit clause requires all states to recognize all other states public records. So if one were to marry in Mass it has to be recognized in Miss.
DOMA is unconstitutional because it goes against the FF&C.
 
the thing about marriage, is that its an issue of mutual consent. two adults seek to engage in a legal contract with each other.

there are financial & other legal elements to this.

but, how would I feel about a State having the right to ban inter-racial marriage?

would I want the Feds to step in and ban such a law?

somethings, like slavery, where rhe rights of others are totally denied.....can't be left to States.

but what happens when a State is on the Progressive side of an issue, say much of the Northeast & Slavery during the early 1800s...but the SCOTUS is on the Conservative side..and supports the right to own slaves?

wanting to leave big decisions up to the Feds can be a double-edged sword, and I think that many folks want to leave the issue of SSM to SCOTUS and the Feds because they believe that the current-day Feds and SCOTUS will find in favor of SSM.

however, if we had a Conservative administation and a Conservative court, I think the same folks would instead want SSM left to the states.

its becuase of this, that I right now...at this very moment...think it should probably be left to each state to decide by referendum.

however, my views on this issue are fluid.
 
Last edited:
SCOTUS disagrees with your opinion, in Loving v. Virginia.

And this Court is very likely to change that decision. The SC is not infallible.

Yes, and in America these couples brake up their children's home far more frequently than their married counterparts. An argument could be made for criminalizing procreation out of wedlock as child abuse since the damage is clearly documented.

An unrealistic goal. People are not going to stop having children out of wedlock just because you don't agree with them or even because of this perceived damage. We should not be criminalizing what "might" happen.

I said: "reasonable expectation". I used that term for a reason. I think now you may get it.

And it is only a reasonable expectation in your opinion. Almost a quarter of married couples today do not have children, either because they can't or by choice. And there are even some state laws that say certain people cannot procreate together in order to legally get married.

Legal marriage is not about procreation, it is about making legal families.
 
Look at this from a constitutional stand point. Marriage is a public record. The full faith and credit clause requires all states to recognize all other states public records. So if one were to marry in Mass it has to be recognized in Miss.
DOMA is unconstitutional because it goes against the FF&C.

Good point, as it still leaves the constitution as the final word in federal law. Marraige is, and should continue to be, an issue of state law. Federal law and other states must honor the marraige contract of any state. It would be interesting to see if the existance of a 'civil union' contract could be required to be 'equated' to marriage, if so then polygamy is right around the corner.
 
The issue really isn't about changing the law or the constitution to protect gay marriage. It's about recognizing that it already does.
 
That argument is insane, as it then makes EVERYTHING and ANYTHING into a "constitutional" federal power, as obviously all things legislated at any gov't level relate to a "state interest", or they would not be "state" law to begin with. Just because something "is" does not elevate it to a "federal" constitutional status.

That is not how the SC sees it. If it was, then many things would never be overturned by the SCOTUS.

The 14th Amendment's EPC applies to state laws. This has been ruled on multiple times, including in Loving v VA and Reed v Reed. The state has to prove their interest in making laws, even those approved by the majority of the state's citizens. The Constitution is in place to try to prevent the government, including now state governments, from trampling the rights of its citizens because the majority wants to do so.
 
the thing about marriage, is that its an issue of mutual consent. two adults seek to engage in a legal contract with each other.

there are financial & other legal elements to this.

but, how would I feel about a State having the right to ban inter-racial marriage?

would I want the Feds to step in and ban such a law?

somethings, like slavery, where rhe rights of others are totally denied.....can't be left to States.

but what happens when a State is on the Progressive side of an issue, say much of the Northeast & Slavery during the early 1800s...but the SCOTUS is on the Conservative side..and supports the right to own slaves?

wanting to leave big decisions up to the Feds can be a double-edged sword, and I think that many folks want to leave the issue of SSM to SCOTUS and the Feds because they believe that the current-day Feds and SCOTUS will find in favor of SSM.

however, if we had a Conservative administation and a Conservative court, I think the same folks would instead want SSM left to the states.

its becuase of this, that I right now...at this very moment...think it should probably be left to each state to decide by referendum.

however, my views on this issue are fluid.

That is the priamary reason for the constitution, to say what is (and what is not) a federal power. Marraige is NOT mentioned in the constitution, therefore it is a state issue. The constitution is clear on the matter of race, it may not be used to ban entering into a contract, however gender is not seen as 'equally' protected, as we may still have 'separate but equal' things based on gender.
 
Absolutely,

then the full faith and credit clause can make the marriages valid everywhere else.
 
So marriage is needed for such thing? I really don't care if you are married or if you are a military spouse, btw

Yes, it is. There is a necessity to ensure that those with unescorted access to military bases are cleared for national security reasons. Legal spouses have a need for unescorted access to our bases.

So appeals to popularity mean something to you? Just so know, the failure of marriage is growing my numbers. :)

Yes, that is what you keep saying..

There are enough people who feel the government needs to be involved in marriage. It is reasonable to see why the need exists. You don't have to agree with it, but it doesn't make you right.

And marriages failing have nothing to do with whether there is a need for legal marriage.
 
It is only a matter of civil rights if same-sex civil unions are not endowed with the same entitlements as heterosexual civil unions. Calling heterosexual civil unions a "marriage" and same-sex civil unions something else is not necessarily a civil rights violation.

Currently, no civil unions have the same rights and benefits of marriage, so it is a matter of civil rights. And since same sex marriage is more legal than same sex civil unions, we are much closer to getting legal same sex marriage than same sex civil unions.
 
Back
Top Bottom