Is anti-gay unconstitutional

[IndependentTexan]

Welcome to Debate Politics!

How is marriage a "right"? It is a privledge granted by the states.

If that is true, why do most people profess that marriage is a religious institution?

 

[Schweddy]

If that is true, why do most people profess that marriage is a religious institution?

There is a big difference between the religious institution and the states recognition.

The chuch chooses (most times) to recognize them.

The state recognizes the church's institution as long as it is signed off by a judge. One exception that I can think of is Nevada where a paster can perform the ceremony and a judge signoff is not needed.

At any rate, a license is needed to perform and/or be married.
Similar to driving a car - a license is required.

A friend of mine just got married at the court house, but will have the religious wedding later this summer. It is not uncommon.

 

[shuamort]

Welcome to Debate Politics!

How is marriage a "right"? It is a privledge granted by the states.

The Supreme Court said that marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942).

 

[IndependentTexan]

The chuch chooses (most times) to recognize them.

The state recognizes the church's institution as long as it is signed off by a judge. One exception that I can think of is Nevada where a paster can perform the ceremony and a judge signoff is not needed.

At any rate, a license is needed to perform and/or be married.
Similar to driving a car - a license is required.

A friend of mine just got married at the court house, but will have the religious wedding later this summer. It is not uncommon.

Well the original concept of marraige is religious. But because we live in a secular society, the government administrates it.

 

[shuamort]

Well the original concept of marraige is religious. But because we live in a secular society, the government administrates it.

Actually, the original concept is property.

 

[shuamort]

There is a big difference between the religious institution and the states recognition.

The chuch chooses (most times) to recognize them.

The state recognizes the church's institution as long as it is signed off by a judge. One exception that I can think of is Nevada where a paster can perform the ceremony and a judge signoff is not needed.

At any rate, a license is needed to perform and/or be married.
Similar to driving a car - a license is required.

A friend of mine just got married at the court house, but will have the religious wedding later this summer. It is not uncommon.

Who can perform a marriage and its requirements vary from state to state. Some states don't even require a couple to get married and will instead consider them "common law" married. Utah is one example of this:

Common Law Marriage: Yes. A common law marriage is a situation where a man and woman have never had a formal wedding ceremony but may be declared husband and wife. Filing for common law marriage will allow the court to assist in matters such as custody or the division of property. Utah does recognize the validity of common law marriages. In order for a common law marriage to be filed, the following qualifications must be met:

• Both parties must be competent and able to give consent.

• Both must be able to be married.

• Both must be living together as man and wife.

• Both have assumed marital responsibilities and duties.

• Both must have "held themselves out" as husband and wife such that others perceived them to be married.

 

[Schweddy]

Let me complete that quote Shuamort:
"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. The power to sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, far-reaching and devastating effects."

:spin: Bravo! Well out of context!

The legislation is about sterilizing criminals - not marriage per say.

So, taking your same logic - a gay man cannot procreate with thier partner if they are married because that is "fundamental to the very existance and survival of the race". Therefore that "basic civil right of man" for marriage is irrelivant to gay parties.

Nice try.

 

[IndependentTexan]

Actually, the original concept is property.

Property? how would you come to that idea? The bible and religion's state marriage, not the government.

 

[Schweddy]

Actually, the original concept is property.

Good point.

 

[shuamort]

Let me complete that quote Shuamort:
"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. The power to sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, far-reaching and devastating effects."

:spin: Bravo! Well out of context!

The legislation is about sterilizing criminals - not marriage per say.

So, taking your same logic - a gay man cannot procreate with thier partner if they are married because that is "fundamental to the very existance and survival of the race". Therefore that "basic civil right of man" for marriage is irrelivant to gay parties.

Nice try.

That was part of the precedent used in Loving V Virginia. See here:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888 ). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

 

[IndependentTexan]

So, taking your same logic - a gay man cannot procreate with thier partner if they are married because that is "fundamental to the very existance and survival of the race". Therefore that "basic civil right of man" for marriage is irrelivant to gay parties.

Well h/o here. What you are suggesting is that gay's do not have equal rights as other citizens. Rather their gay, african-american, or anglo, they should have equal rights. Congress can't discriminate against gays. It is against the 1st ammendment.

 

[Schweddy]

No, that is not what I said. Every person in the US have equal rights.

I am saying that marriage is NOT a right.

Edit: I twisted his logic. As you can see it was just as silly a notion.

The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

This is talking RACE not same sex. A state can not restrict a marriage by RACIAL discriminations. How does this have anything to do with gay marriage?

 

[shuamort]

No, that is not what I said. Every person in the US have equal rights.

I am saying that marriage is NOT a right.

Edit: I twisted his words and used them against him. As you can see it was just as silly a notion.



This is talking RACE not same sex. A state can not restrict a marriage by RACIAL discriminations. How does this have anything to do with gay marriage?

OK, Vauge. You believe that everyone in the US should have equal rights? Do you also believe that people should have the same equal rights regardless of gender?

 

[Schweddy]

OK, Vauge. You believe that everyone in the US should have equal rights? Do you also believe that people should have the same equal rights regardless of gender?

Yes.

Not sure where your going, but I know your going to pull an ace card somehow.

Let's here it.

 

[shuamort]

Yes.

Not sure where your going, but I know your going to pull an ace card somehow.

Let's here it.

OK, (you saw the set-up a'comin'). Marriage right now is between a man and a woman. Gay marriage is between a man and a man (or a woman and a woman). The only difference is the gender of one of its participants. So if you think that genders should have equal rights, why should there be discrimination based on gender barring two people from marrying.

 

[Schweddy]

I do not see it as discrimination - I see it as a states choice.

Because of activist judges, we need to make an amendment.
It will be twisted to the point of animals marrying and to the point that marriage is worthless.

Put it on a national vote or even require every state to vote on it. But do not attempt to change the rules mid game. Common sense dictates that the founding fathers had not even remotely considered same sexes to ever marry. Even as slightly back in history as the cases you sited. The idea of gays marrying and someone arguing it over 'rights' just wasn't in the equation.

 

[shuamort]

I do not see it as discrimination - I see it as a states choice.

Because of activist judges, we need to make an amendment.
It will be twisted to the point of animals marrying and to the point that marriage is worthless.

Put it on a national vote or even require every state to vote on it. But do not attempt to change the rules mid game. Common sense dictates that the founding fathers had not even remotely considered same sexes to ever marry. Even as slightly back in history as the cases you sited. The idea of gays marrying and someone arguing it over 'rights' just wasn't in the equation.

OK, State's choice. So a state could bar black and white people from marrying? Because that would be a state's choice to do so. And that's what you're arguing. Of course, that doesn't stop the federal government from recognizing marriage either and taxing people and giving them benefits in accordance with that status.

Animals, minors, or inanimate objects cannot submit to a legal contract which is what marriage is. There'd have to be HUGE laws changed to accomodate those ideas that are on the slippery slope to begin with.

The founding fathers also didn't consider internet copyright laws either. Founding fathers didn't really consider a lot of issues that we deal with nowadays, there's no way that they could have known.

 

[anomaly]

I do not see it as discrimination - I see it as a states choice.

Because of activist judges, we need to make an amendment.
It will be twisted to the point of animals marrying and to the point that marriage is worthless.

Put it on a national vote or even require every state to vote on it. But do not attempt to change the rules mid game. Common sense dictates that the founding fathers had not even remotely considered same sexes to ever marry. Even as slightly back in history as the cases you sited. The idea of gays marrying and someone arguing it over 'rights' just wasn't in the equation.

No to a national vote, Vauge. The people of Massachusetts think differently than do Texans. Leave the vote up to the states, end of story. The national amendment Bush proposes is insane. If the south hates gays, so be it. If the north is more reasonable in its approach, good. Just have every state vote on whether civil unions should be available for gays, and then on whether gay marriage should be legal. When each state decides, act on it. But, ensure that the people of, say Alabama have to recognize a gay married couple of Massachusetts. That's it.

 

[Schweddy]

No to a national vote, Vauge. The people of Massachusetts think differently than do Texans.

Well, we know the judges do. Unsure about "the people".

I guess the next question should be.

Say Mass passes and Texas does not - should Texas be required to honor it?

That would be the next step. When the gay groups go to the Supreme Court to sue Texas and it could become law that all states would have to recognize the others. Thus, it would make the states vote irrelivant on gay marriage.

 

[shuamort]

Well, we know the judges do. Unsure about "the people".

I guess the next question should be.

Say Mass passes and Texas does not - should Texas be required to honor it?

That would be the next step. When the gay groups go to the Supreme Court to sue Texas and it could become law that all states would have to recognize the others. Thus, it would make the states vote irrelivant on gay marriage.

And that's how Loving v. Virginia came to be. The miscegenated couple moved from D.C. (IIRC) which allowed their marriage to Virginia which didn't.

 

[Squawker]

The simplicity of it without having to get a lawyer to get some of the 1049. Of course, there's also the fact that there are plenty of the number that you can't get no matter what lawyers, contracts, etc.

You claimed that a married couple get more "rights". Show us which ones you cannot get through any of the above means. There are other ways to get what one wants besides hijacking the institution of marriage. Gays claim they don't want to be discriminated against, then they antagonize millions of people with ridicules demands like this one. Most States are amendable to Civil Unions Insisting they need "marriage" is another in your face, I want what I want, and to hell with what you think about it move.

 

[shuamort]

You claimed that a married couple get more "rights". Show us which ones you cannot get through any of the above means.

You want me to go through the whole 1049 list?

I'll give ya Estate Taxes which are easily forgiven to a spouse as opposed to from one person to another.

The Social Security act only gives benefits to "husband and wife". No legal contract can change that.

There are other ways to get what one wants besides hijacking the institution of marriage.

Not right now and not with the ease of marriage that is offered to all citizens, even felons on death row.

Gays claim they don't want to be discriminated against, then they antagonize millions of people with ridicules demands like this one.

Yeah, how dare they want equality! It's just like the black people wanting slavery to end or women wanting the vote. Why can't they just wait until the majority of people in power are ok with that?

Seriously, why are two people getting married a "ridiculous demand". It doesn't affect you at all. Stopping gays from getting married doesn't make them go away either. They're going to be around whether they can get married or not.

Most States are amendable to Civil Unions Insisting they need "marriage" is another in your face, I want what I want, and to hell with what you think about it move.

Some states have proposed legislation that would ban civil unions (amusingly, including civil unions between straight people too). And since when has equality been a demand that's so unreasonable? I just don't understand your stance against it.

 

[IndependentTexan]

Look here is the point. The Federal Marriage Amendment rejects American traditions of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It would reverse the constitutional tradition of protecting individual freedoms. None of our constitutional amendments restrict individual freedoms. In fact, the amendments to the Constitution have been the source of most of the Constitution's protections for individual liberty rights. The proposed amendment, by contrast, would deny all protection for the most personal decisions made by millions of people in committed long-term relationships.

The ACLU is right

 

[Schweddy]

It would reverse the constitutional tradition of protecting individual freedoms. None of our constitutional amendments restrict individual freedoms.

Are you sure about that?

I pay income taxes. It is because of an amendment. It restricts my individual freedom to spend my earned money the way I see fit.

 

[IndependentTexan]

income tax isn't an individual freedom...but thats and entirely different subject...but do you see where im getting at with that?