Discuss: Is prohibiting same-sex marriage unconstitutional? Why or why not?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kiki
  • Start date Start date
K

kiki

Guest
I'm writing a paper on it, and I have to discuss arguments from both sides (supporting one and refuting the other). PLEASE READ CAREFULLY: I am NOT asking whether you think it is morally right or wrong. I am asking what evidence you see in the U.S. Constitution that supports your opinion.


For instance:

According to the 14th amendment, prohibiting gay marriage is unconstitutional, because "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..."

Or, if you're for the other side:

Marriage is not a privilege as defined in the Constitution, so it cannot be unconstitutional to deny it.

You could argue against this by quoting the 9th amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Basically... tell me specifically why you think it is or isn't unconstitutional, and cite the article or amendment that you believe supports this. You can also try to refute a previous answer, also by citing a specific clause.

Mostly I want to see the arguments the other side will have, so I can refute them. I'm not telling you which side I'm on, though. This will help me greatly with my essay, and I think the debate will be pretty fun, too. =)
Also discuss, if you like:

Does the 9th or 10th amendment take precedence in this issue? The 9th says that states cannot violate rights just because they are not listed in the Constitution, while the 10th says that any rights not listed are the responsibility of the states. According to this you could say that prohibiting gay marriage is unconstitutional because it is protected by the 9th amendment, or you could say that the states have the right to rule on this issue because of the 10th amendment.
Oh I already know which way I'm arguing. I just want to know what people who think otherwise would say, so I can point out the faults in their arguments. =P
Sparhawk: This is exactly the kind of answer I mentioned I WASN'T looking for. You do not cite any part of the Constitution. So, your answer is simply an opinion and not helpful to me whatsoever.

Jacob: I don't agree with you, but yours is at least sort of a valid argument. By the way, I'm not looking to tell people they are wrong. I'm only looking to account for their arguments in my essay, and describe why I think they are wrong. Not to tell them right here that they are wrong.

Bud: I'm not sure I understand what you're saying at all. But if you're referring to homosexuals as perverts, I know how I would respond to this in my essay.
Austin: Thank you. You cite good sources.
Now if there were sources as good for the opposing side. =P
 
Yes. The Court has held that Marriage is a fundamental right (Loving v. Virginia) and that banning same-sex couples from a certain right is a violation of due process under the 14th amendment if the same right is granted to opposite sex couples (Lawrence v. Texas.) (At least without a compelling, necessary, and proper state interest which bans on same-sex marriage are likely to withstand if strict scrutiny is applied) The court has also found that homosexuals qualify for at least some level of scrutiny in discrimination laws (Romer v. Evans)

A valid comparison can be made with miscegenation bans and same-sex marriage bans. In both cases, a marriage contract is deny to two otherwise legally acceptable consenting adults on the basis or race or biological sex.

One could also argue that public water fountains are a privilege, not a right, but equal access to them under the 14th amendment is a constitutional right.
 
Marriage has not now nor at any time in the past ever been intended to cover same sex relationships. It is the gays that are trying to stretch a definition to cover something that it was never intended to cover.
 
so you are looking for a way to try and trap others beliefs? Thats a bit trollish.

ALL laws restrict the freedom and impose on peoples "rights."
Laws are established by the people of the country/ state/ county/ etc... that the citizens of that territory feel best protect the safety and interests of the majority.

So simply, no, its not unconstitutional to pass such a law.
 
this is really a very simple question to answer. this is supposed to be a free country, right? well it's not but it's supposed to be. ask yourself, what would freedom say? freedom would say let those queers get married. so side with freedom and let it happen.
 
this is really a very simple question to answer. this is supposed to be a free country, right? well it's not but it's supposed to be. ask yourself, what would freedom say? freedom would say let those queers get married. so side with freedom and let it happen.
 
Back
Top