Okay kids, What valid argument can we give to keep same-sex marriage illegal?

Question

I oppose same-sex marriage, but can we constitutionally ban it?

Our founder would have know what homosexuals were, I am sure.

But do think they meant to put it provisions for their rights in the constitution?

Answer 1

The only valid reasons to prohibit same-sex marriage are religious. And religious grounds are not valid for secular law.

For a detailed analysis of each argument for and against, see the link below.

Answer 2

First there are two types of marriage, one religious and one for the government. As for the religious, there are many churches that will perform a same sex marriage, So that in the eyes of the church (and God) they are married. The government can not recognize this or any other religious marriage because of the establishment clause

What people really want is a governmental marriage and they want the benefits that come with a marriage.

The term marriage has been historically defined as a union between a man and a woman. (At least in this country and yes the term marriage has change, but it has always included at least one man and one woman.) The reason for a marriage has been to produce and raise children. That is producing new citizens for the country. Something the government has an interest in. It is also something that two people of the same sex can not do. Now marriage has also become a contract between two people. There are benefits that come with that contract; property rights, that ability to bind another person in a contract, to direct medical care for the other person, the right of inherit, just to name a few. Most of which can granted to any person with some legal paper work.

Businesses also use marriage to define benefits they give to specific employees and their spouses. So to change the definition would impact their costs. It could change some legal precedents on marriage; it could also mean the ending of benefits for many a married couple. A business could easily say they would only recognize a marriage from a particular church or religion, and that would open up a whole new can of worms, and lawsuits, so more likely they could just end the benefit all together, and save the cost of the benefit.

"I oppose same-sex marriage, but can we constitutionally ban it?"

It may have already, or it may be legal already. Under Article IV “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”

Now since there were marriages preformed before they were banned in some states they many have to recognize those marriages. Or that marriages may have been illegal, since that state would be forcing a state with a standing ban (law) to recognize a marriage that is illegal in their state (assuming that law was in place before the marriages took place).

Imagine a case where a couple is married in one state, moves to another, according to Article IV they are married, even though the marriage was not preformed in that state. Now if this is a same sex couple, does that state they move too have to recognize the marriage? According to Article IV it would have too, but now it that state has a standing law against this type of marriage, doesn’t the other state have to recognized that ban?

Now that some states have a Constitutional ban on same sex marriages, do not other states have to recognize that? It something for the courts to work out, or we need to amend the constitution, or a law exempting Marriage from Article IV, but that might cause more problems than it solves. For example, if one state would decide it wouldn’t recognize the marriage from one state, could a child support order be enforced in that state? Etc.

"But do think they meant to put it provisions for their rights in the constitution?"

What was put in the constitution was to limit the powers of the federal government, there are many “rights” that are not in constitution that have been ‘”found”, the states have let the federal government take over many of the states rights, some they gave up over what could only be call blackmail, if would be if you or I did it, some they just gave away. If it wasn’t for Article IV it would be just a state issue.

Where to go from here, don't know maybe it will take a constitutional amendment.

Answer 3

The founders did not cover many aspects of modern life. At the time the constitution was written, women didn't have the vote, their property passed to their husband upon marriage, marriages were arranged by families, not by individuals, a woman could not marry without her father's permission, and under no circumstances could a white woman marry a black man - they were still slaves after all.

It is a fallacy that marriage is an unchanging state. In Utah, before that state joined the union, polygamy was still legal; and some Christians would argue it should be, because the bible expressly approves of a man having several wives. Of course, the Bible also says you can divorce simply by saying "I divorce thee" three times - and indeed, that is still the law in Israel.

Marriage has changed substantially over the years. There are two aspects - the state-sanctioned contract (which would be best described as a civil union for ALL couples, not just gay couples) and marriage, which should be reserved to the churches. Some churches allow gay couples to marry (such as reform and conservative jews) and some don't (such as Southern Baptists and Roman Catholics). It is entirely the right of the churches to set their own rules about marriage.

However, the state must treat everyone equally. If we as Americans are to be allowed a state marriage based simply on choice and love, then all couples, regardless of whether they are gay or straight, must be given the same option. That's what the founders would have said - they didn't like the idea of religious ideology spilling over into government.

Answer 4

reliable I vote Republican besides the undeniable fact that i'm no longer in competition to sax sex marriage; nonetheless, I do have an opinion on the area. Marriage is a non secular training and in no way a legal suitable. there is not any language everywhere interior the structure which more often than not provides the federal or state governments the authority to assert who can and can't get married. States do issue licenses besides the undeniable fact that the genuine reason for that is to furnish the married couples some legal evidence that they willingly entered right into a binding settlement with one an more suitable. There are diverse causes besides the undeniable fact that it truly is the fundamental one i assume. it truly is completely valid to set a minimum age for marriage; though, it truly is so some distance because the authority of marriage regulation could could flow. There are constitutional guidelines which decrease discrimination of the muse of gender and in some states sexual orientation. there is also the separation of church and state to save in ideas. the only authority for marriage regulation is interior the clergy and non secular doctrine. The state or federal governments don't have any authority to intervene in this. That been stated, the church does no longer own the note marriage and any ceremony accomplished through a state genuine is purely as binding as a ceremony accomplished through clergy. even if you call it marriage or a civil union the outcomes is the equivalent, 2 individuals entering suitable right into a binding settlement with each diverse. The objection to same sex marriages is a non secular objection and in no way a approved objection. One may argue the objection on an ethical foundation besides the undeniable fact that you're literally unable to legislate morality and except for that ones moral foundation comes typically from faith/religious doctrine. So in spite of which way you spin it there is not any approved foundation in which same sex marriage is also made unlawful. they could manage to call it a civil union in the journey that they favor to besides the undeniable fact that a tree by technique of yet another call continues to be in reality a tree.

Answer 5

Actually in law the two contracts are different because there is NO risk of Children (The Major purpose of Marital law) in a 'same sex' well, uniting/union.

Marriage laws are not only to protect the two partners, But also to protect the Rights of (Chanced-Risked) 'offspring' arising from the union of the two.

Same sex has NO such Risk!

After that well, the word (And institution of) "Marriage" is an invention of the Church, not the state, such that the state doesn't really have any right to go changing it's meaning as per the requirement of Separation of Church and State.

It is in the Bible that the Christ Changed 'water into wine' for a ceremony of Marriage, so the rights of the Church are well established, as old as the hills themselves.

Answer 6

Homosexuality was around in the days of the founding fathers and who knows what their thoughts were. Nor is it even relevant.

Gay marriage was brought up as a constitutional amendment in the last election to deflect thought away from the Iraq war and to make is so that conservative 'had' to vote for Bush for moral issues.

It is and will be unconstitutional, let it lie.

Answer 7

Marriage has always been a two-part situation. A legal (license) method and a ceremony method. Although the legal form is what is at question, we still have to consider. Can we really change the words to say, "we bring together this woman and this woman"? (regardless of their real sex).

The law recognizes the LEGAL marriage of a man and woman and nothing else. If I can't get benefits for a girlfriend whom I have lived with for several years, then neither should a homosexual get benefits for his "girlfriend".

Now, if you want to change the law to state that ALL people who live together can share benefits, not just homosexual people, then I might agree with you.

But to request special benefits for you that the law does not currently allow to everyone and deny others that same level of benefits is not fair.

Answer 8

In my opinion, i don't think it can be constitutionally banned. All men are created equal, and free. People therefore should get to choose what they do with their life in this "free" nation. I am 100% for same-sex marriage, I'm not gay but I think if thats what makes people happy they should be able to do it. We all have the right to the pursiut of happiness right?

Answer 9

My opinion on this is plain and simple. If it doesn't affect you, then it isn't your business.

Just because you may be outraged at someone's actions, doesn't mean it should affect your life. It just means that you would not do those things yourself.

If two people want to get married, then let em. If they are the same sex, who cares? It certainly won't affect my life in any way, so why should I care?

If it is ungodly or whatever, then that's between God and them...not me. I'm not God...and (sorry to say) won't ever be...so I'm not to judge.

As far as the constitution goes: If you complain about this supposed alteration, why haven't you complained about all the earlier ones?

Answer 10

With the high divorce rates for straight people, why not let gays have to put up with all that hate and discontent also. Let them shell out thousands for a divorce lawyer, if they adopted kids, let them fight for custody and child support. Why should straight people be the only ones to suffer.