• 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 is Not a Right

Again, just to show you where I'm coming from, the state issues marriage licenses to EVERYONE who qualifies according to the state's criteria.
The discrimination is in the requirements of the license.
The state cannot discriminate based on gender. Nor can they discriminate based on race. According to your logic, the state can deny a marriage license to a heterosexual couple if one is white and the other black; which of course, is also unconstitutional.
 
Again, just to show you where I'm coming from, the state issues marriage licenses to EVERYONE who qualifies according to the state's criteria.
The discrimination is in the requirements of the license.

Okay fine so why don't certain people qualify for this license? Answer that
 
Since the state already issues marriage licenses to straight people, the 14th Amendment insists that the state also issues marriage licenses to gays.

The problem with your argument as stated is that gays can indeed get marriage licenses. The essence of the problem is not whether homosexual individuals can obtain marriage licenses, but whether legal marriage is defined as man and woman or as two consenting adults. In the end the 14th really doesn't cover that issue. The argument indeed works logically both ways.

The difference with the privilege of marriage is that states' marriage qualifications, once proven, can't be violated.
A hunter can go over the limit and lose his license, a NYC gyro cart operator could use dog instead of goat, etc....
But a participant in a marriage can't change his age or bloodline so it's unnecessary to have a state revocation process with marriages.

First that is dependant upon what the state has for qualifications. If indeed marriage was a privilage, then the state could also truely add whatever other qualifiers they want, like maybe one cannot be a pre-op trans. Secondly, especially if an agency is responsible for the rule on a license, they can make revoking rules whatever they want.

So here a thought, before things became real focused on LBGT rights, if an individual finally admited they were trans (assume that they've been lying to themselves as well) but still loved their spouse and the spouse still loved them, would the state have revoked their marriage license? Now, I really doubt that it would happen, but would it have happened in say the 60's or 70's?
 
Your post is based on the false premise that licenses are issued fairly to everyone, when they are not. The state restricts marriage licences based on the gender of those applying. The Constitution forbids discriminating based on gender and it insists that everyone be treated equally under the law.
I'm probably not making my position clear. Sorry.

The ISSUANCE of marriage licenses is fair to everyone. They need to qualify. If a person qualifies he will receive a license.
What you may find unfair is that one of the qualifications for now is to marry a person of the opposite gender. At the moment that is starting the process of being remedied.

But a larger issue in your post is the idea of fairness. Fair is not an idea with any relevance in the law.
There are myriad stories in this country of people who have been hurt by affirmative action.
Nowhere in the history of post-discrimination remediation has the concept of fair ever been used as an argument against it despite its clear unfairness.
Fairness is often secondary to what the government considers to be the bigger picture.
 
The state cannot discriminate based on gender. Nor can they discriminate based on race. According to your logic, the state can deny a marriage license to a heterosexual couple if one is white and the other black; which of course, is also unconstitutional.
The reason that particular discriminatory practice is no longer with us is because it passed its test in court.
Gay marriage is next.
 
Okay fine so why don't certain people qualify for this license? Answer that
The answer is that the states are responsible for setting the criteria.
If your quesiton is WHY the states have that criteria, I can't answer for them.
 
So here a thought, before things became real focused on LBGT rights, if an individual finally admited they were trans (assume that they've been lying to themselves as well) but still loved their spouse and the spouse still loved them, would the state have revoked their marriage license? Now, I really doubt that it would happen, but would it have happened in say the 60's or 70's?
Some professors used to get annoyed with "what if" questions, but sometimes they're great.

I think states, even the most progressive among them, probably just look at the biological gender or post-op gender.
But post-op during the marriage..... I'll bet there'd have to be some kind of ex-post facto clause (perhaps not invented until it happens) that would allow the marriage to continue.

As bizarro as your premise sounds, it's going to happen eventually.
 
51 pages in and the fact remains marriage is still a right
 
I'm probably not making my position clear. Sorry.

The ISSUANCE of marriage licenses is fair to everyone. They need to qualify. If a person qualifies he will receive a license.
What you may find unfair is that one of the qualifications for now is to marry a person of the opposite gender. At the moment that is starting the process of being remedied.

But a larger issue in your post is the idea of fairness. Fair is not an idea with any relevance in the law.
There are myriad stories in this country of people who have been hurt by affirmative action.
Nowhere in the history of post-discrimination remediation has the concept of fair ever been used as an argument against it despite its clear unfairness.
Fairness is often secondary to what the government considers to be the bigger picture.
It is not fair to everyone. Anything which contains discriminatory practices is inherently unfair. Most of the discriminations are acceptable to our Constitution, such as discriminating due to age or incest. Others are not, such as discriminating based on race or gender.

The reason that particular discriminatory practice is no longer with us is because it passed its test in court.
Gay marriage is next.
Umm, it's the same test. Both discriminate against a group the Constitution protects; one is race, the other is gender.
 
The problem with your argument as stated is that gays can indeed get marriage licenses. The essence of the problem is not whether homosexual individuals can obtain marriage licenses, but whether legal marriage is defined as man and woman or as two consenting adults. In the end the 14th really doesn't cover that issue. The argument indeed works logically both ways.
That's simply not true. Most states still refuse to issue marriage licenses for gay marriages.

In Alabama, for example, it's in their Constitution...


No marriage license shall be issued in the State of Alabama to parties of the same sex.

That, in my humble opinion, violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.
 
That's simply not true. Most states still refuse to issue marriage licenses for gay marriages.

In Alabama, for example, it's in their Constitution...


No marriage license shall be issued in the State of Alabama to parties of the same sex.

That, in my humble opinion, violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Again, that was not your original point. You will note that the Alabama constitution does not make any reference to the sexual orientation of the individuals obtaining the marriage license, merely the gender. So indeed a gay individual can obtain an marriage license. Again it comes down to what is a "marriage" legally defined as. Is it defined as a legal union between a man and a woman or is it defined as a legal union between two consenting adults? If the later then you are correct and not issuing to a gay couple would violate the 14th. But if the former then the 14th is not in violation because any man/woman combination, regardless of their orientation can still obtain the license.
 
Again, that was not your original point. You will note that the Alabama constitution does not make any reference to the sexual orientation of the individuals obtaining the marriage license, merely the gender. So indeed a gay individual can obtain an marriage license. Again it comes down to what is a "marriage" legally defined as. Is it defined as a legal union between a man and a woman or is it defined as a legal union between two consenting adults? If the later then you are correct and not issuing to a gay couple would violate the 14th. But if the former then the 14th is not in violation because any man/woman combination, regardless of their orientation can still obtain the license.

Umm, an individual alone does seek a marriage license as it's a binding license between two individuals. And homosexuals are discriminated against for no reason other than gender. The U.S. Constitution does not allow the government to discriminate against people due to race or gender.

As far as defining marriage between a man and a woman, that too is unnecessary as the U.S. Constitution doesn't define marriage between a black person and a white person either, yet that marital bond is equally protected by the U.S. Constitution in that the government is constitutionally forbidden from discriminating due to race or gender.

There is no valid legal reason for not allowing nationally. You have not provided a valid reason and you were wrong in your attempt to claim that gays can obtain a marriage certificate in every state.
 
you forgetting something, i stated if the federal government will not hear the case, then the case defaults to the state court.

States still have to abide by the constitution of the United States.
 
1. I agree, rights are always affected by how they affect others.
But, your gun ownership isn't only affected by how it affects others. It is also affected by your age, mental state, physical capabilities, etc. I would call these qualifications or criteria. That puts us back in the realm of earning the privilege.

2. No, not for being white, but they CAN say "you're too young, you can't drive" or "your not mentally competent, you can't drive". Again, an earned privilege.

3. This sounds like you've found an inconsistency in what I've been saying, but I don't quite understand what you mean.


"Or tell my wife.. your Asian, so you cannot drive.. (though we would all be safer:2razz:)."
That's the best thing I've read on this forum so far.

1. My right is not affected by age, mental state physical capabilities per se.. those things affect how expression of my right affects others. That's why its constitutional to say a 6 year old can't buy a Glock.. but its not constitutional to have a law restricting buy a glock to folks 20 to 45. Those qualifications or criteria or only constitutional when they legitimately can be construed to impact others. not just arbitrary qualifications.

Would you say voting then is not a right but a privilege? Since you can't vote when you are 2.. so therefore its okay to have jim crow laws requiring you to show up with 3,000 in cash to be able to vote correct? Because its not a right according to your premise. Would you agree?
 
I'm probably not making my position clear. Sorry.

The ISSUANCE of marriage licenses is fair to everyone. They need to qualify. If a person qualifies he will receive a license.
What you may find unfair is that one of the qualifications for now is to marry a person of the opposite gender. At the moment that is starting the process of being remedied.

But a larger issue in your post is the idea of fairness. Fair is not an idea with any relevance in the law.
There are myriad stories in this country of people who have been hurt by affirmative action.
Nowhere in the history of post-discrimination remediation has the concept of fair ever been used as an argument against it despite its clear unfairness.
Fairness is often secondary to what the government considers to be the bigger picture.

Its not fair "if the need to qualify" discriminates against consenting adults.

Consenting? Okay,
Adults" as a qualification, okay

White? Not okay as a qualification. this is not fair.
 
you were wrong in your attempt to claim that gays can obtain a marriage certificate in every state.

I am quite correct in this claim. It is your claim that needs adjusting. Any gay male can go with any gay female in any state in this country and obtain a marriage license between them. The sad thing is that neither of them can obtain the license when accompanied by a person of the same gender, which is the argument you need to be making instead of implying. The reality still remains that gay people can obtain marriage licenses, just not necessarily with the individuals they wish.

Marriage is not defined by the constituion in any way shape or form. Neither are restrooms. By your logic, it is unconstitutional to have seperate restrooms, especially in government bulidings, because access to one room or the other is denied based upon gender. The same can be said for locker rooms.
 
I am quite correct in this claim. It is your claim that needs adjusting. Any gay male can go with any gay female in any state in this country and obtain a marriage license between them. The sad thing is that neither of them can obtain the license when accompanied by a person of the same gender, which is the argument you need to be making instead of implying. The reality still remains that gay people can obtain marriage licenses, just not necessarily with the individuals they wish.
That is discrimination based on gender. Straight people are not discriminated in such a fashion. And to rest your position on a gay person "can" get a marriage license as long as they marry a person they don't necessarily want to because of their gender is like saying you have the right to vote but can't because the state won't allow you to because the state doesn't agree with whom you want to vote for.

Marriage is not defined by the constituion in any way shape or form. Neither are restrooms. By your logic, it is unconstitutional to have seperate restrooms, especially in government bulidings, because access to one room or the other is denied based upon gender. The same can be said for locker rooms.
Umm, locker rooms are private as are almost all restrooms. Even in the case of a public restroom, you can be denied access to it as there is no right to use it. Your analogy doesn't apply. In contrast, the government issues marriage certificates to couples but discriminates against gay couples for no reason other than gender.
 
States still have to abide by the constitution of the United States.

if the state makes a law, naturally it should go the the state SC [and if they rule in favor of the law] before it moves to the federal court system, but the federal government will not hear the case, then state law will stand.
 
Last edited:
if the state makes a law, naturally it should go the the state SC [and if they rule in favor of the law] before it moves to the federal court system, but the federal government will not hear the case, then state law will stand.

May stand? Absolutely.. a number of gun control cases in New York and California and Illinois have suffered the same fate...

but that doesn't by default make it Constitutional,

Slavery, Segregation, Jim Crow laws, etc.. all were legal under state law for some time...

that did not mean that they were constitutional.
 
May stand? Absolutely.. a number of gun control cases in New York and California and Illinois have suffered the same fate...

but that doesn't by default make it Constitutional,

Slavery, Segregation, Jim Crow laws, etc.. all were legal under state law for some time...

that did not mean that they were constitutional.

true ,but if the federal government will not take the case then state law will prevail.
 
Back
Top Bottom