The debate about gay marriage always seems to come down to the argument that it is wrong because God said so and marriage is religion. This argument is pointless. If gay marriage is to be legal or illegal, it will be done by a law or supreme court ruling. Since there is supposed to be seperation of church and state, a religous argument can hold no water. Religion shouldn't determine whether or not anything is legal or illegal.
So from a purely legal point of view, should gay marriage be illegal, or should it be illegal not to allow gay marriage. Policy may come into this as even free speech can be regulated if there is a neccesary and compelling governmental interest. And for the record, marriage is a term with meaning not just religiously, but also legally. A judge can marry people, not just a priest or minister, and the term is used in many laws so it does have legal, not just religious meaning. I'm interested to hear arguments from both sides, and will be posting my own shortly.
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowIt is widely believed within academic circles that the human race is biologically, and so innately, androgenous. Within the contemporary world due to the hetronomativity template, homosexuality is out of favour and so there is a big debate when something happens, -such as a gay marriage - to question that template, when in fact homosexuality is perfectly normal and was seen as such with ancient Greek society.
The debate about gay marriage always seems to come down to the argument that it is wrong because God said so and marriage is religion. This argument is pointless. If gay marriage is to be legal or illegal, it will be done by a law or supreme court ruling. Since there is supposed to be seperation of church and state, a religous argument can hold no w terest. I'm interested to hear arguments from both sides, and will be posting my own shortly.
(See further, Judith Butler or the Queer theory)
Ok, so here is my argument part 1.
In Loving v. Virginia the Supreme Court struck down a Virginia statute which prohibited marriage between white people and people of other races. They argued that it "deprived the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment." They also said that the right to marry was essential to the pursuit of happiness. They basically said that it violated the 14th Amendment because marriage was part of the 'pursuit of happiness' and the idea of liberty, so stopping them from getting married was taking away this liberty without due process. So if marriage is a fundamental right between any man and woman, why shouldn't it also be a right between men and men or women and women? If both people are consenting adults, why shouldn't they be allowed to get married regardless of their gender respective to one another?
Keep in mind that Supreme Court precedents are official interpretation of the Constitution and are considered the "supreme law of the land".
The four countries that have done it so far have shown no evidence that it damages anything at all, so I see no point in arguing against it. I'm sure "God" would not smile down upon the tendency to marry and divorce several times. Anyway, if you're going to outlaw gay marriage, outlaw marriages in Las Vegas first.
"Marriage" in America is a purely legal contract. As such it gives certain legal rights and benefits at both the state and federal levels.
There is a strong argument to be made that these contracts should remain the sole domain of state's rights, and it is in fact current federal law that no state (or the federal government) shall be forced to observe a same-sex marriage from any other state. Though I personally believe the question of gay marriage is answered in the affirmative through constitutional mandate (voiding this law, among others), I would also be relatively pleased to see the question decided by individual states (as it has been).
As mentioned, it takes a compelling government interest to create law which overrules personal freedoms which might otherwise be protected. Valid questions within this context include whether same-sex households are detrimental to the health of young children (since marriage often gives adoption and/or custodial benefits) and determining how damaging to society as a whole the legal recognition of same-sex marriages is likely to be.
-JC
Originally posted by ChurlantI have no problem with gay marriage but I do not see it as a Federal issue. The Federal government already oversteps its bounds in many issues. Marriage is a state issue. As far as I know there are no Federal marriage licenses. If the Federal government wants to get into the marriage business then let it begin issuing Federal marriage licenses.
"Marriage" in America is a purely legal contract. As such it gives certain legal rights and benefits at both the state and federal levels.
There is a strong argument to be made that these contracts should remain the sole domain of state's rights, and it is in fact current federal law that no state (or the federal government) shall be forced to observe a ...[text shortened]... ing to society as a whole the legal recognition of same-sex marriages is likely to be.
-JC
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowDid it specfically state that the marriage had to be between a man and a woman? Surely the rights relate to every individual? If person A has the constitutionally protected right to get married, and person B has the constitutionally protected right to get married, and it doesn't specify anywhere else in the constitution that they have to be different sexes, doesn't that require that homosexual marriage is inherently legal?
Ok, so here is my argument part 1.
In Loving v. Virginia the Supreme Court struck down a Virginia statute which prohibited marriage between white people and people of other races. They argued that it "deprived the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment." They also said tha ...[text shortened]... ial interpretation of the Constitution and are considered the "supreme law of the land".
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by DelmerIn Australia we have the same issue but it is a federal responsibility. Our states do not have any authority on marriage as defined in our consitution.
I have no problem with gay marriage but I do not see it as a Federal issue. The Federal government already oversteps its bounds in many issues. Marriage is a state issue. As far as I know there are no Federal marriage licenses. If the Federal government wants to get into the marriage business then let it begin issuing Federal marriage licenses.
But that's irrelevant if this is a Amarican only debate.
Originally posted by scottishinnzWell the case did specify a man and a woman of different races. But that is my point here, if it is a right which has to be protected from racial discrimination, why shouldn't it be protected from discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Did it specfically state that the marriage had to be between a man and a woman? Surely the rights relate to every individual? If person A has the constitutionally protected right to get married, and person B has the constitutionally protected right to get married, and it doesn't specify anywhere else in the constitution that they have to be different sexes, doesn't that require that homosexual marriage is inherently legal?