• 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!

Is Gay Marriage a Constitutional Right in the U.S.?

Is Gay Marriage a Constitutional Right in the U.S.?


  • Total voters
    64
SCOTUS disagrees with you

SCOTUS isn't the end all say all in this country. Marriage is not a fundamental right, contract is. It seems more likely that you've picked out a few sentences to run your mouth without reading anything else.

It was originally a transference of property when women and children were treated as chattel.

Handled through religious ceremony.
 
SCOTUS has already ruled that marriage is a right.

Again it is not in the constitution it doesn't matter if a simple majority of judges say it is or isn't right. It doesn't change what the constitution says.
 
Just for the record, most anti-gm agree that marriage is a right. James is in the minority on that opinion.
 
Are you arguing that state cannot repeal their marriage laws?
And/or that doing so woudl have no effect on the institution of marriage?

Nope, I was talking to the base of the argument. Because we're confusing terms in the argument. Marriage in and of itself is not a fundamental right. A Church doesn't have to marry people. But marriage was usurped by government, and in doing so the government turned marriage into a contract. Now contract is a fundamental right of the People. So we should be careful what we're saying. The current institution of marriage, being composed of government issued and recognized contract, is a right. If you remove the contract from religion, it returns to being just a religious passage, not a fundamental right.
 
The 19th Amendment to US Constitution.

No no, I was inviting you to form an argument and post it here.

I can go look at the 19th and still not know what you point was because you leave me to figure out what you're thinking.

I have no such superpowers, you'll have to tell me yourself if you want me to know.
 
Last edited:
SCOTUS isn't the end all say all in this country. Marriage is not a fundamental right, contract is. It seems more likely that you've picked out a few sentences to run your mouth without reading anything else.

Fine challenge the SCOTUS on this one



Handled through religious ceremony.

Not always.
 
Okay fine live in a fantasy world.
I'm sorry -- I asked you two questions that directly address your continued statements that marriage is a right.

Not sure how that indicates that I am living in a fantasy world -- more likely, its an indication of you knowing where the conversation is heading and that you cannot defend your statement once it gets there.
 
No no, I was inviting you to form an argument and post it here.

I did before women had the right to vote they were treated as chattel legally. The property of their husbands.
 
Nope, I was talking to the base of the argument. Because we're confusing terms in the argument. Marriage in and of itself is not a fundamental right. A Church doesn't have to marry people. But marriage was usurped by government, and in doing so the government turned marriage into a contract. Now contract is a fundamental right of the People. So we should be careful what we're saying. The current institution of marriage, being composed of government issued and recognized contract, is a right. If you remove the contract from religion, it returns to being just a religious passage, not a fundamental right.
OK so... what happens to the 'right' if all the states repeal their marriage laws?
 
Fine challenge the SCOTUS on this one

SCOTUS hasn't ruled anything about the universal "right" of marriage. You seem to not understand the fundamentals of this argument and of the Republic. Maybe you'll compose an actual argument instead of just posting blurbs, but until you actually debate what you write is worthless tripe.

Not always.

Who did the founders ask permission from to be married?
 
Then what would be the basis of your objection? "Hey I don't like this!" doesn't really hold water in court.

If we have laws against racial discrimination then that is what I would base my legal objection on. Other than that I would petition to change the law.
 
I did before women had the right to vote they were treated as chattel legally. The property of their husbands.

Right, see, I don't see what the 19th has to do with the history of marriage at all.

Try writing more words, I might pick up on your message.
 
I did before women had the right to vote they were treated as chattel legally. The property of their husbands.
:roll:
The 19th didnt give women the right to vote, and women having the right to vote did not 'free' them from beng chattle.
 
Again it is not in the constitution it doesn't matter if a simple majority of judges say it is or isn't right. It doesn't change what the constitution says.

14th amendment and the FCC clause. Good luck on fighting that unless you can get some activist right wing judges in there.
 
OK so... what happens to the 'right' if all the states repeal their marriage laws?

I already told you. I don't see why you're having difficulties with this. The right is in contract. If the contract is removed from the practice, it returns to a solely religious practice. I've said it multiple times already. The right isn't inherently marriage. Marriage as known today has become right because contract has been mixed into it. The contract is a right, people should be free to enter into the collective contracts involved in marriage without being married.
 
I already told you. I don't see why you're having difficulties with this. The right is in contract. If the contract is removed from the practice, it returns to a solely religious practice. I've said it multiple times already. The right isn't inherently marriage. Marriage as known today has become right because contract has been mixed into it. The contract is a right, people should be free to enter into the collective contracts involved in marriage without being married.
While I do understand what you're saying...

Seems that if you have something because the state gave it to you, you were granted a privilege, as the state cannot grant rights.
 
14th amendment and the FCC clause. Good luck on fighting that unless you can get some activist right wing judges in there.
How do either apply if all the states repeal their marriage laws?
 
SCOTUS hasn't ruled anything about the universal "right" of marriage. You seem to not understand the fundamentals of this argument and of the Republic. Maybe you'll compose an actual argument instead of just posting blurbs, but until you actually debate what you write is worthless tripe.

Okay fine what does does it mean that all men are created equal?

The SCOTUS has ruled on marriage and it is a right. You want to fight the ruling go to the SCOTUS.
 
While I do understand what you're saying...

Seems that if you have something because the state gave it to you, you were granted a privilege, as the state cannot grant rights.

Fundamentally I agree with that. The State did not grant marriage, but rather usurped marriage.

Personally, I see this problem cleared up by removing the contract from marriage and returning it to ward of the Church. The contracts involved in marriage can be offered to people who can freely fill them out and choose for themselves whom they want to manage their estate and papers and such.
 
14th amendment and the FCC clause. Good luck on fighting that unless you can get some activist right wing judges in there.

So I take it that you admit that the supreme court's interpretation is based on mostly on what they say not what is actually in the constitution?
 
Okay fine what does does it mean that all men are created equal?

The SCOTUS has ruled on marriage and it is a right. You want to fight the ruling go to the SCOTUS.

If it were a right, why is it that gay people are prohibited? That's not a right. If the SCOTUS ruled it a right, the States could no longer deny it to same sex couples. In the end, your arguments make little to no sense. There isn't a lot of effort put forward. If you wish to have an impact and contribute to the debate, you're going to have to put for an intelligent argument. Not just "SCOTUS said blah" with no evidence, no argument, and no point.
 
Okay fine what does does it mean that all men are created equal?

The SCOTUS has ruled on marriage and it is a right. You want to fight the ruling go to the SCOTUS.

On balance, SCOTUS also ruled that women did not in fact have the civil right to vote, which is why we had to create the 19th amendment.

I suspect a similar amendment will have to be created regarding marriage, as there is no right to marry someone of the same gender.
 
So I take it that you admit that the supreme court's interpretation is based on mostly on what they say not what is actually in the constitution?

Nope, I think it is based on equality man woman gay straight or religion we are all equal. And that is what I think the Constitution says and that is what I think the majority of the Founding Fathers strived for despite their own personal shortcomings.
 
Back
Top Bottom