Banning gay marriage constitutional??

Question

Banning any form of marriage contract deny the right to Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness??

Answer 1

There is no consititutial reason to ban gay marrage. In fact, the civil right of life liberty and the persute of happiness would suggest that gay marrage should be leagalized. Oh, you just aid that.

Also, the main arguement agesnt is religion, which has no marrit on law, so if passe due to that arguement, the seperation of church and state will come into play.

Gay marrage does not break any preioves laws, and there is no legal issues agesnt it.

The whole idea of not passing is based on persoanl choice, which is not why we hired the politisons who make this law. It's what the people what. If the people can argue and porvide the points, they cna get the laws passed or not.

NOTE: Gay marrage is not a religios cerimony, but a civil one, so it doesn't interfear with the rilgious issues at that point.

Answer 2

Well, first off, "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," are not in the Constitution, those words come from the Declaration of Independence.

But the reasons that Bush and the other supporters of the political right offer an amendment to ban Gay Marriage is that they fear that as the Constitution stands now, any law stopping the states from approving gay marriage would be Unconstitutional. By passing a Constitutional amendment, they could make the ban part of the constitution. They haven't got the votes to do it now, but we need to continue to stand tough against them, or they just might get the votes one day.

Answer 3

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Polygamy is a marriage contract and is banned.

The current administration in Congress appears to want to leave this a state issue. The Executive branch is pushing for an amendment. We won't know the constitutionality of such an amendment until a challenge reaches the Supreme Court, which in its current incarnation is too new to predict how it will decide.

Congress is very bad at legislating morality. Just look at the failed Prohibition amendments. And Congress has proven itself poor at legislating equality, which has been decided by the Courts (rights of women to vote, equal rights for blacks and no "separate but equal"). Banning gay marriage would create a second class of citizen, one unable to obtain equal rights and representation under the law which would be unconstitutional.

Its funny how some of the religious conservatives running this country or influencing its Representatives claim that "one man one woman" is justified by the Bible. So many things are, such as slavery and polygamy, and many things that are expressly forbidden such as eating shellfish or wearing clothing of mixed fibers are ignored. Congress is duty-bound to represent these views, however not to the exclusion of all others. And that's where the Separation of Church and State come in. We shall see, come November, how Congress shakes out for the next several years.

Answer 4

yes, it does.
WHY?
In the Constitution, it gives us 3 "unailable rights", Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness. The ban goes against this.

Answer 5

To ban gay marriage would be unconstitutional and therefore requires a amendment to the Constitution in order that it could be banner . President butt I mean Bush is trying to get and amendment to the Constitution in order to define marriage as between a man and a woman . That is the only way it could ever be banned .

Answer 6

Damn, there's a lot of long answers to this question.

I think in the eyes of the law, marriage is nothing but a legal contract between two people. There is no "sanctity" involved in this CONTRACT. Denying some people the right to make this contract - just because it makes some people feel "icky" inside to think about it - is most certainly unconstitutional.

Answer 7

Its the work of our homophobic president that is trying to keep the eyes off of the war he started and can't figure out how to pull out. Yet we have North Korea that he is walking away from. And look at the mess with the Illegals.
They are worried about us ruining the sancity of marriage!! That has already been done. How many straights have been married more than 3 times?? And how many swingers are married? Bi-Sexuals can get married. So why are gay/lesbians being singled out????? I am monogamous and life-long, and a legal citizen wanting the same rights as everyone else. Who does it hurt??

Answer 8

Well, this is just my humble opinion, so take it for what it's worth. (or better yet, dismiss it..hehe)

I believe all the hubbub about the constitution to be a little over the top. I don't mean that it isn't important, but to me, the law is not the end all to everything. In other words, if you have laws in your town, they're there to help things go smoothly, for people to have rights and safety. But if things change in your town, as they usually do, the laws can be changed, or should be, to fit the circumstances.

I'm not arguing against gay marriage. But I don't believe in using that argument of the constitution, for anything. Unless it is in force. In other words, laws against murder are commonly known and accepted. Whether a law is commonly accepted CAN be argued. But if it's NOT that commonly accepted, then perhaps it should be changed. Just my thoughts. (I hope you understand my drivel, even if you don't agree with it...lol)

Answer 9

Gay "marriage" could boost the mental and physical health of homosexuals, doctors believe.

Rates of depression, drug abuse and cancer are higher in the gay community than among heterosexual people. The report said civil partnerships, which were introduced in England and Wales in December, were likely to reduce prejudice and social exclusion.
The Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health article was based on previous studies in other countries. I think having civil partnerships is going to mean a lot more security, financially, without the need to seek legal recourse, which in turn means less stress and that will be beneficial.
Professor Michael King, of University College London, who co-wrote the article, said: "Civil partnerships are likely to break down some of the prejudice and promote greater understanding, including among staff working in the health service. Research has shown that lesbians have higher risk of breast cancer, heart disease and obesity, while gay men have a higher risk of HIV, the article said. Gay people are also more likely to suffer from depression, drug abuse and suicidal urges than heterosexual people. And the report said studies had shown those who are in a stable relationship, of either the same or opposite sex, enjoyed some health benefits. It cited Swiss research which showed patients with HIV in stable partnerships were more likely to progress more slowly to Aids. And other studies have revealed that married same sex couples had greater openness about their sexual orientation and closer relationships with their relatives than same sex couples not in civil partnerships. But the doctors in the latest study added further research was needed to prove the theory. Andy Forrest, of Stonewall gay rights campaign group, said the report was "logical" but it would be too early to see if such an impact emerged in England and Wales. I think having civil partnerships is going to mean a lot more security, financially, without the need to seek legal recourse, which in turn means less stress and that will be beneficial. There is also the issue of prejudice and hassle that people can encounter in their every day lives, with the rights these partnerships have this will be reduced. Banning same-sex marriage restricts freedom of choice.
It prevents gays and lesbians from living in a state-sanctioned relationship. Banning same-sex marriages labels gays and lesbians 'second-class citizens' Banning same-sex marriage mixes Church and State. This argument is popular in the USA and other countries where the separation of Church and State is a formal constitutional principle. Civil marriage is something regulated by the state and no longer requires any religious involvement. To keep Church and State separate, the nature and conditions for secular marriage must not include religion-based moral elements. Those who want to ban same-sex marriage are actually using the state to apply a religious morality to citizens.
That is entirely unconstitutional!!!!!

Answer 10

If the majority of people in the US think it is constitutional to ban homosexual marriage then majority rules.