• 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!

Same Sex Marriage, how long till its national?

Same Sex Marriage, how long till its national?


  • Total voters
    26
14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights
Here is a list of the fourteen cases, with links to the opinions and citations to the Court’s discussion of the right to marry.

Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.

Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”


Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”

Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

you're welcome


There's what's legal and what's right. You're correct that SCOTUS has ruled on marriage before. US Conservative's question, which I'm sympathetic to, is should they be ruling on it? Marriage is largely a state regulated institution and having the Feds - yet again - insert themselves in the domain of the states really isn't a good thing.

SSM should and will be legal across the land. The question is really does having the Federal government impose it from on high the right way to do it? That's legitimately debatable.
 
These cases are not all solely regarding gay rights, but rather define the constraints that can not be imposed on marriage, correct?

100% correct because gay rights is the sub issue, its a rights issue first and foremost, its a EQUAL rights issue to be exact.

again loving vs Virginia was note solely regarding black rights was it? nope because it didnt have to it was about RIGHTS . . . EQUAL RIGHTS

glad i could clear up you confusion for you
 
There's what's legal and what's right. You're correct that SCOTUS has ruled on marriage before. US Conservative's question, which I'm sympathetic to, is should they be ruling on it? Marriage is largely a state regulated institution and having the Feds - yet again - insert themselves in the domain of the states really isn't a good thing.
2.)SSM should and will be legal across the land.
3.)The question is really does having the Federal government impose it from on high the right way to do it?
4.) That's legitimately debatable.

1.) yes they SHOULD, because its an equal rights issue, states dont get to infringe on equal rights and when they do they are correct eventually. SO the FED is not inserting themselves the states overstepping is the issue and the fed is doing exactly what it should.
2.) correct
3.) this is how our government is designed, its not mob rule and states dont get to step on individual rights, the Constitution is the highest law.
4.) only to those that falsely think this is a states rights issue, which it is not.
 
No. They do not all even have to do with marriage (Lawrence v. Texas for example). The cases all have in common what the title of the link says:

"14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right"

In other words, 14 cases were the court affirmed marriage is a fundamental right.

I specified gay marriage.
 
There's what's legal and what's right. You're correct that SCOTUS has ruled on marriage before. US Conservative's question, which I'm sympathetic to, is should they be ruling on it? Marriage is largely a state regulated institution and having the Feds - yet again - insert themselves in the domain of the states really isn't a good thing.

SSM should and will be legal across the land. The question is really does having the Federal government impose it from on high the right way to do it? That's legitimately debatable.

You are correct in your inference. Well said.
 
100% correct because gay rights is the sub issue, its a rights issue first and foremost, its a EQUAL rights issue to be exact.

again loving vs Virginia was note solely regarding black rights was it? nope because it didnt have to it was about RIGHTS . . . EQUAL RIGHTS

glad i could clear up you confusion for you

I was specifically asking about GAY marriage. Are you for bigamy/polygamy as well? If not, why?
 
I specified gay marriage.

meanignless just like specifying "interracial marriage", "inter-religious marriage"

rights makes them one in the same . . marriage
 
1.)I was specifically asking about GAY marriage.
2.)Are you for bigamy/polygamy as well? If not, why?

1.) again
meanignless just like specifying "interracial marriage", "inter-religious marriage" etc etc
rights makes them one in the same . . marriage

seems you are very confused about this issue

2.) youll have to be more specific
if polygamist/bigamist want to fight for a new right I have no problems with that as long as it fits the already established rules of a legal contract. Consensual adults.

but there is nothing about SSM that solely lends itself to those two.
 
I think they will punt for a while longer until more and more cases start making their way up. Eventually they are going to have to take it up. I'd like for it to be sooner, but I don't see it happening.

What about before Obama leaves office, maybe he pushes it?

Or would that be seen as harming the party in general in the upcoming election?
 
When did gay marriage become a right? Dates, please.

Not a right, but anti-discrimination laws apply to lots of things, like jobs, too.

Altho some people say there is an implied right in the 14th Amendment that SCOTUS has ruled on, that marriage is.
 
You are correct in your inference. Well said.

It can, and has been, interpreted as a gender discrimination issue and gender discrimination is federal.

(gender discrimination in the ability to enter a contract)
 
When did gay marriage become a right? Dates, please.

Equal Protection of the laws is a right. Marriage is a right, whether it is for same sex couples or opposite sex couples. There is no real legal institution of "gay marriage". There is only marriage and it is being restricted on the basis of sex/gender, which violates the EPC of the 14th Amendment.
 
These cases are not all solely regarding gay rights, but rather define the constraints that can not be imposed on marriage, correct?

They are regarding marriage. There is no such legal thing as "gay marriage". What is being fought for is access to marriage by same sex couples, just as it wasn't "interracial marriage" that was being fought for in the 1960s, but rather simply access to legal marriage by interracial couples.
 
I specified gay marriage.
You said this.

These cases...define the constraints that can not be imposed on marriage...?
You did not say "gay" marriage here. If you said it somewhere else I apologize, but I am just responding to what I saw written. Regardless, my answer still stands. Many of the cases do not involve imposing limits on marriage at all, such as Lawrence v. Texas. These are 14 cases were the court affirmed that marriage was a fundamental human right, even if marriage was not at issue in the case.

Are you trying to say that none of those cases say that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional? Because nobody is disputing that.
 
Last edited:
It can, and has been, interpreted as a gender discrimination issue and gender discrimination is federal.

(gender discrimination in the ability to enter a contract)
What makes these cases so interesting is that there are many different standards of review these cases can fall under. Because marriage is a fundamental right, these cases should automatically be judged under strict scrutiny. If for some reason the court denies that, there is still the argument to be made that sexual-orientation is a suspect class that too could be judged under strict scrutiny. Even if that is rejected, the argument of gender discrimination puts this case into intermediate scrutiny territory. And if all that is rejected, the court would then judge based on the lowest standard of rational basis.

The kicker is that courts have ruled not only that same-sex marriage bans violate strict scrutiny, but that even if they were to judge the bans under rational basis they would still fail.
 
I was specifically asking about GAY marriage. Are you for bigamy/polygamy as well? If not, why?

Gay marriage isn't any more related to those issues than interracial marriage was. Is there a reason you feel it necessary to link gay marriage to polygamy?
 
1.) yes they SHOULD, because its an equal rights issue, states dont get to infringe on equal rights and when they do they are correct eventually. SO the FED is not inserting themselves the states overstepping is the issue and the fed is doing exactly what it should.
2.) correct
3.) this is how our government is designed, its not mob rule and states dont get to step on individual rights, the Constitution is the highest law.
4.) only to those that falsely think this is a states rights issue, which it is not.


Actually our government was designed to give states the most say on issues of individual rights. If you'll remember initially the Bill of Rights wasn't binding on the states and wasn't made binding until the early 20th century. The Federal government by design wasn't given a whole lot of power over the states - though they have over the years marginalized the states.

The point is debatable. Having the Federal government, through SCOTUS, impose its will on the states has a downside in that it just pushes the states that much closer to being nothing more than a taxing authority. Like it or not Federal overreach is a legitimate and serious concern. I'd be much happier if the Feds just stayed out of it and let the states work it out. They all will eventually recognize SSM - it's inevitable.
 
Actually our government was designed to give states the most say on issues of individual rights. If you'll remember initially the Bill of Rights wasn't binding on the states and wasn't made binding until the early 20th century. The Federal government by design wasn't given a whole lot of power over the states - though they have over the years marginalized the states.

The point is debatable. Having the Federal government, through SCOTUS, impose its will on the states has a downside in that it just pushes the states that much closer to being nothing more than a taxing authority. Like it or not Federal overreach is a legitimate and serious concern. I'd be much happier if the Feds just stayed out of it and let the states work it out. They all will eventually recognize SSM - it's inevitable.

And since the original Bill of Rights, we have added more. In fact, we had a Civil War pertaining to this issue. The states lost, giving more rights essentially to the individuals, and protecting those rights on a federal level. We should not give up our individual rights to tyrannies of the states.
 
And since the original Bill of Rights, we have added more. In fact, we had a Civil War pertaining to this issue. The states lost, giving more rights essentially to the individuals, and protecting those rights on a federal level. We should not give up our individual rights to tyrannies of the states.

I am well aware of that. I was pointing out the original intent of the framers was to design a system where the states had a much larger role in individual rights issues.
 
I am well aware of that. I was pointing out the original intent of the framers was to design a system where the states had a much larger role in individual rights issues.

Except many did not intend this. There were huge divides in which should have more power, states or federal. The issue comes in that just because a government is smaller in comparison to another does not mean that it cares about the people or their rights more, nor should people have to move out of their state in order to enjoy their rights. This is the premise of the 14th Amendment. The framers realized that times would change and that some of the things they put into our government would not work in the long run, which is why we do have the ability to change the US Constitution but it is not done on a whim.
 
1.)Actually our government was designed to give states the most say on issues of individual rights. If you'll remember initially the Bill of Rights wasn't binding on the states and wasn't made binding until the early 20th century. The Federal government by design wasn't given a whole lot of power over the states - though they have over the years marginalized the states.
2.)The point is debatable.
3.)Having the Federal government, through SCOTUS, impose its will on the states has a downside in that it just pushes the states that much closer to being nothing more than a taxing authority.
4.)Like it or not Federal overreach is a legitimate and serious concern.
5.)I'd be much happier if the Feds just stayed out of it and let the states work it out.
6.)They all will eventually recognize SSM - it's inevitable.

1.) so my statement is true that is how its design, thanks
2.) its not unless you want to debate an entirely different topic about origins/beginnings/meanings/interpretations
3.) in this case thier(SCOTUS) will is not what is being imposed, equal rights and the Constitution is being protected and that doesnt hurt that states at all. States rights remain intact and aren't even scratched by this.
4.) I agree 100% and again if thats the topic you would like to talk about feel free to find a thread that is about that, fed overreach is not an issue here at all. Protecting individual rights and the constitution is not an overreach at all its exactly what they should do. The state has been found to be doing the overreach similar to minority rights, women rights and interracial marriage.
5.) you are welcome to have that opinion but the states dont get to work this out, its beyond thier power.
6.) I agree and its a shame that there are states that choose to get in the way of freedom and rights and infringe on them
 
1.) so my statement is true that is how its design, thanks

That's what it's become, not the way it was designed, but I guess I'm being overly nitpicky.

We both want the same thing J and I couldn't be happier that NY recognized SSM. We just disagree on how to get there.
 
I'm actually going to go with "never". I don't think it will ever take a federal ruling from the supreme court. I don't think they'll take any appeals on the subject, either. If they do, it will be long after every district has already ruled that SSM bans don't meet a rational basis test (which should be, as the OP suggests, within the next few years), and some state is trying to use a backdoor restriction. If there is a supreme court ruling, it won't be for the legitimacy of SSM itself, but rather on the level of protection it requires, which I expect would be intermediate scrutiny. However, such backdoor restrictions likewise may not make it up to the supreme court, or may never happen, so I'm sticking with never. I don't think it will ever require a national ruling.
 
I'm actually going to go with "never". I don't think it will ever take a federal ruling from the supreme court. I don't think they'll take any appeals on the subject, either. If they do, it will be long after every district has already ruled that SSM bans don't meet a rational basis test (which should be, as the OP suggests, within the next few years), and some state is trying to use a backdoor restriction. If there is a supreme court ruling, it won't be for the legitimacy of SSM itself, but rather on the level of protection it requires, which I expect would be intermediate scrutiny. However, such backdoor restrictions likewise may not make it up to the supreme court, or may never happen, so I'm sticking with never. I don't think it will ever require a national ruling.

Do you think that SSM will be recognized at the federal level to receive those benefits, subject to fed taxation, legal protections, etc?
 
Back
Top Bottom