What is wrong if the American people vote to ban gay marriage?

Question

What part of the Constitution says that marriage is for everyone?

Some very good answers both ways. I am very suprised that no one attacked me personally on asking the question. I am glad that everyone has been civil thus far.

Answer 1

If the people vote, then nothing is wrong with it.

Answer 2

The problem with the American people voting to ban gay marriage is that they would be writing discrimination into the law. The fact that a slight majority of Americans may be homophobic does not mean that gays should be treated unfairly under the law. In fact, the entire structure of American democracy was designed to protect the rights of the minority while promoting the interests of the majority.

Marriage is not just a piece of paper; it is actually a set of government issued benefits and protections that allow for everything from inheritance rights to hospital visitation in the case of serious illness.

Opponents of gay marriage should take to time to consider how they would feel if one of their own children were gay.

Answer 3

The Constitution doesn't say anything about marriage. It does say, however, that all citizens hold the same rights.
But the USSC made marriage a civil right in their ruling of the Loving Decision in 1967, and they didn't specify "for heterosexuals only."

The states that have passed laws against gay marriage by voting on it have basically cut their own throats. This issue will come to the USSC in the future, and one of the main issues that will propel it there will be that American citizens have voted on the civil rights of other American citizens. The USSC REALLY doesn't like that sort of thing. Every time states in this country have attempted to make those sorts of votes stick they have lost when it gets to the highest court in our land. And whatever the USSC decides they have to abide by. This won't be a hot button issue this election because of the war. But don't be surprised if within 20 years gay marriage is as common as interracial marriage is now. All signs point to that happening in the future.

Answer 4

I don't have a problem with gay marriage. I do have a problem with defining marriage without qualifications to be a fundamental right, or treating marriage as an Equal Protection issue. Coragryph: I usually agree with a lot of what you say, but I differ with you on your interpretation of Loving. Loving was decided in the context of the larger issue of racial segregation. And, if employment discrimination litigation after the passage of the Civil Rights Act has taught us anything, it is that it is improvident to interpret court decisions in race cases as encompassing situations not involving race. This is not to say that discrimination based on sexual orientation is somehow acceptable, or that it should not be eradicated -- but in the eyes of most courts, the issue of racial discrimination stands separate and apart from other forms of prejudice.

To say that one has a fundamental right to marry whomever one wants would have implications far larger than merely permitting gay marriages. No court -- no matter how liberal -- would ever render such a blanket decision, as this expansive language would embrace polygamous marriages, incestuous marriages, and marriages between humans and animals. After all, if any qualification on marriage is a violation of one's fundamental right to marry, doesn't that mean you can marry your goldfish? Again -- I am not likening gay marriage to interspecies marriage, I'm just noting the implications that an unqualified right to marry would have.

It is deplorable that gay people are not allowed to marry. However, when we ask the government to issue us a marriage certificate, we are asking the public to recognize our union officially and to approve of it (sorry for the platitude). Marriage is not a private matter, therefore -- it is very much a public matter, which involves the State on many levels. Accordingly -- barring racial discrimination -- public recognition is best achieved through public concensus. (I note parenthetically that at the time Loving was decided, anti-mecegenation laws had already been legislatively repealed in the majority of states that had them, and there was widespread national support for their elimination.)

Thus, while I believe that gay marriage should be allowed, it is something that is best achieved through legislation, not through courts -- and the right of states to define and to put qualifications on marriage should be preserved.

EDIT: I expect to be thumbed down by supporters and opponents of gay marriage alike.

Answer 5

The Supreme Court, in Loving v. Virginia (1960s) established marriage as a fundamental right. And the 5th and 14th Amendments prohibit infringement of any fundamental right in the Due Process clauses. The 14th Amendment also prohibits discrimination in the Equal Protection clause.

But gay marriage is already legal in all 50 states. Other than blood relations, any gay man can marry any lesbian woman in any state. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with it.

The ban on same-sex marriage is purely gender-based discrimination, just like the racial discrimination struck down in Loving v. Virginia.

Answer 6

The constitution doesn't say one way or another--it never mentions marriage. It's just funny that conservatives want a "nanny state", where the government tells everyone how to behave and controls their lives. And that in the land of the free, freedom means you are free to be like everyone else--not some kind of queer.

Gay people are not asking your permission to lead that lifestyle, nor are they asking you to endorse it. Why anyone thinks that the government should be telling people how they should live is beyond me--if it doesn't hurt anyone else, the government shouldn't get in the middle.

Good point David--I see it is in the Constitution.

Answer 7

Nothing. Ban on abortion, gay marriages, and other issues should be voted on in local elections. Keep these votes away from the Feds. If people don't like it they can move to the state that allows or disallows things they like.

Answer 8

What part of the constitution says marriage is for heterosexuals only. What part of the constitution says someone has to be restricted in their rights because you don't like the way they live?

How does gay marriage affect anyone other than the gays getting married?

Can I vote to eliminate Mormons from the country because I don't believe in their religious beliefs?

Wake up people. You don't have ANY inherent natural right to restrict how others live because you don't agree.

Answer 9

The Constitution, wisely, doesn't touch on that subject. Therefore it is left to the states to decide. Ban, ban, ban seems to be the mantra of many on the right. Shades of big brother, totalitarianism, prying into one's private life, or a holier than thou attitude? Who knows, it could be all of those and then some.

Answer 10

It's not right for the people to vote in this case, since many people would vote not understanding or caring to understand their fellow citizens. It would be like asking the state of Georgia to vote on who would be the leaders of the state, the Baptists or the Unitarians. Of course the majority would then be able to squelch the rights and freedoms of the minority.

Answer 11

Gay marriage being wrong is a religious belief. Separation of Church and State. I don't want someone elses religious beliefs dictating the laws that control my life.