• 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!

traditional marriage

Is traditional marriage a Constitutional right?


  • Total voters
    21
Would there be such a thing as "no fault divorce" if government didn't regulate (not just recognize) marriage?

Well welcome to modern civilization. Governments have always regulated marriage. Before the separation of church and state,the church via government did a lot more regulating of marriage than they do now.
 
Our opinion on what is and is not constitutional is irrelevant. The only opinions that actually matter are those in the federal court system, and if it goes before SCOTUS, the opinion of the majority of justices. If the majority of justices ruled that you have a constitutional right to kick a Texan, then for all intents and purposes, that would be your constitutional right.

That is a fallacy.

For the Supremes to rule that you have a constitutional right to kick a Texan, that right must be stated in the Constitution. The Supremes cannot just "declare" a right that doesn't exist.

Having said that, it's obvious from various rulings that the Supremes now THINK they have the ability to do that and, since there is no appeal allowed after the Supreme Court rules, we are stuck with it until a later Supreme Court strikes down their own ruling.
 
?


There are people who don't know that?
Apparently.

Please, gay marriage has been legal here since 1997

Thanks for your input
No problem. Were their marriages recognized in US? For instance, a Canadian married SS couple moves to US in 1999, would their marriage still be recognized as legal?
 
That is a fallacy.

For the Supremes to rule that you have a constitutional right to kick a Texan, that right must be stated in the Constitution. The Supremes cannot just "declare" a right that doesn't exist.

Having said that, it's obvious from various rulings that the Supremes now THINK they have the ability to do that and, since there is no appeal allowed after the Supreme Court rules, we are stuck with it until a later Supreme Court strikes down their own ruling.

Which means that for all intents and purposes, if SCOTUS says you have a right, you have a right.

That said, your argument is flawed anyway. The constitution does not grant you rights, it limits the power of government. In fact, there was great concern at the time of drafting the original Bill of Rights that if they were included in the constitution, some authoritarian in the future would think that was the only rights citizens had.
 
Marriage is not a Constitutional right. Equal treatment under the law is.
 
Our opinion on what is and is not constitutional is irrelevant. The only opinions that actually matter are those in the federal court system, and if it goes before SCOTUS, the opinion of the majority of justices. If the majority of justices ruled that you have a constitutional right to kick a Texan, then for all intents and purposes, that would be your constitutional right.
The SCOTUS is comprised of humans, and is therefore fallible.
 
This is about a consenting man and a consenting woman who aren't related and are of sound mind and body. Is it a Constitutional right?

This is not about a church wedding or a private wedding. This is about government marriage.

I apologize in advance if I haven't made this clear enough.

No. In fact, not only is governmental marriage not a right, but I don't think it should exist in the first place. The government has no business judging the validity of people's relationships.

HOWEVER, because governmental marriages DOES exist, and because it is the ONLY WAY to access some of your own rights and familial safeguards, it is certainly a right for all consensual families, regardless of configuration, to have equal access to their own rights. If gays cannot access this, they are inherently being financially discriminated against, and the stability of their families is being legally threatened.

Therefore, it is a right for gays to have access to governmental marriage, unless or until the government stops using marriage as the only path to accessing some of your familial rights.
 
Last edited:
You misinterpreted what I said

The people decided to give the government the powers you decry.

No. They did not IMO. They simply failed to notice what was happening and then, once made dependent on government, they allowed it.
 
Not a single one of the Founders got everything they wanted in the Constitution and most likely every single one had to compromise and accept some phrase or clause that they did not think should be there. What they did finally mostly agree on--a few never agreed to sign the final document--was the original Constitution that everybody felt they could live with and that would accomplish at least most of what they wanted to accomplish and could sell to the folks back home, most especially after the Bill of Rights was added. The document they adopted was brilliantly conceived and allowed the most amazing nation the world to flourish with people who governed themselves.

I believe they would ALL to a man be rolling in their graves at the mere suggestion of any part of the federal government, let alone the Supreme Court, dictating to the people what marriage must be and what the people were required to accept. At the same time they may have agreed or disagreed with whatever decisions the people made on that issue themselves but would have allowed the people to decide.

And a way to change that Constitution so that when things changed in the future, as they knew it would, so could the Constitution. And it did, to include an Amendment that limited state power, rights in favor of individual power, rights.
 
Which makes one wonder if there is any original or independent thought or conviction in there someplace. :) The point is that if we are to be a free people, we must be able to organize our societies and live our lives as WE choose and not as an authoritarian central government dictates. And if that means we get it wrong sometimes, well, then so it goes. The Founders were of a strong conviction that a people given liberty to choose and order their own destinies would get it a lot more right than they would get it wrong. They had no such faith in a self-serving government, however.

We were never meant to be direct democracies and the Constitution was meant to protect our individual rights as much as states' rights. And moreso when people realized how much the states would try to restrict the individual rights of the people, even moreso than the federal government that the Founders were worried about doing so. The states are still governments. Many of our states now have more people than the entire US did when it was first founded. There is no way to claim that we are better off with a strong state government restricting rights just because some people want it. Many are quite happy with having state governments limited in what they can do by the Constitution, so long as it is the rights they care about that are being protected for them against state intrusion of those rights.
 
We were never meant to be direct democracies and the Constitution was meant to protect our individual rights as much as states' rights. And moreso when people realized how much the states would try to restrict the individual rights of the people, even moreso than the federal government that the Founders were worried about doing so. The states are still governments. Many of our states now have more people than the entire US did when it was first founded. There is no way to claim that we are better off with a strong state government restricting rights just because some people want it. Many are quite happy with having state governments limited in what they can do by the Constitution, so long as it is the rights they care about that are being protected for them against state intrusion of those rights.

Yes the timid and needy and dependent are rampant in our modern society. But there are still some of us who understand what self governance means--and it does not mean a pure democracy--but it also does not mean returning to a monarchy or dictatorship or feudal kingdom or other totalitarian government that the Constitution was intended to free us from. Those who think the central government is somehow more noble than the people themselves are willing to sign away all their liberties it seems. Some of us are not ready to do that.
 
Yes the timid and needy and dependent are rampant in our modern society. But there are still some of us who understand what self governance means--and it does not mean a pure democracy--but it also does not mean returning to a monarchy or dictatorship or feudal kingdom or other totalitarian government that the Constitution was intended to free us from. Those who think the central government is somehow more noble than the people themselves are willing to sign away all their liberties it seems. Some of us are not ready to do that.

We aren't returning to any of those things (monarchy, dictatorship, etc) by ensuring that individuals have their rights protected against the states becoming any of those things that you mentioned. There is no signing away of liberties to ensure that individuals can marry or don't get trampled on by the majority voting against their rights, voting against them simply because they don't like them or don't approve of something they are doing because it violates the religion of the majority (not because it actually furthers any state interest).

Why do so many try to argue this as a states' rights vs federal powers argument? It isn't. It is a states' rights vs individual rights argument. The federal government has little to nothing to do with this issue except in that they are there to decide which side should have their rights prevail.
 
Once again a complete miss on all points.

Well, if you took the Esther soaked rags out from under the floor mat for a few minutes you might be able to follow what I'm saying.

Marriage is not a governmental concern. It is not something it needs to concern itself with at all.
 
Well, if you took the Esther soaked rags out from under the floor mat for a few minutes you might be able to follow what I'm saying.

Marriage is not a governmental concern. It is not something it needs to concern itself with at all.


The sure sign of losing a debate is to open with insult.

We're done here.
 
Those who fought for, forged, and ratified the U.S. Constitution did not intend for the federal government to have ANY jurisdiction on how the states would organize their societies or how the people would be required to live their lives. They certainly did not intend that ANY federal court have ANY jurisdiction on the marriage laws or customs in any state. And legal precedent can be just as corrupt as any new laws the courts illegally take upon themselves to establish. The courts were intended to interpret and rule on existing law period.

The "Civil War" pretty much ended the ideals of states rights. Well before that the Constitution pretty much knocked around states rights when the Articles of Confederation were over written in favor of the Constitution. This is pretty much where the states sold themselves out to the Federal bureaucracy.
 
The sure sign of losing a debate is to open with insult.

We're done here.

Lmao... You've got to be kidding me.. You have q picture of hunter as your avatar, call yourself fear and loathing... And think a reference to ether soaked rags as more insult than light rye humor.

When you you unbunch your panties let me know

And I don't call "missed on all points, again" as a stand alone statement.. debating.
 
This is about a consenting man and a consenting woman who aren't related and are of sound mind and body. Is it a Constitutional right?

This is not about a church wedding or a private wedding. This is about government marriage.

I apologize in advance if I haven't made this clear enough.

The US Constitution is about government power. I don't see where marriage is spoken to as a right.
 
The SCOTUS is comprised of humans, and is therefore fallible.

Of course SCOTUS is not omniscient, but for all practical purposes in our system of government they might as well be and that is the point.
 
Wrong question. Try again. Show us you understand the topic.

Its not the wrong question.....go back and look at the post. How did this decision "Run Roughshod over citizen's rights"?

The whole point of the Constitution is that certain rights are so fundamental that they can't be put to a popular vote.

Sorry. You lose.
 
Its not the wrong question.....go back and look at the post. How did this decision "Run Roughshod over citizen's rights"?

The whole point of the Constitution is that certain rights are so fundamental that they can't be put to a popular vote.

Sorry. You lose.

You see? You haven't even thought about it.
 
You see? You haven't even thought about it.

What are you talking about....you aren't even being coherent. Do you even understand how the Constitution works?
 
Back
Top Bottom