Intro: I am arguing on a legal basis that legalizing gay marriage cannot be enforced on all fifty states by the United States federal government. Morality will not be a major factor in this debate.
In the Oberbefell v. Hodges decision,  the Supreme Court deemed that there is a constitutional, and therefore national right to gay marriage. The grounds for legalizing it was that prohibiting gay marriage violated the 14th amendment  namely the following part of section one:
"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The citizens who filed suit suggested that they were denied both liberty and equal protection for not being issued marriage licenses for their same-sex partners. This raises the essential question: Do same-sex couples have the right to get married? One has the right to get married as an action. (No law prevents inmates or felons from getting married.) However, it is talking about something else to suggest that one can get married to whom or what they want, even being consensual. I am arguing that there is no such right. If there is not a right to getting married to whatever you want, then the plaintiffs case is wrong. This is my burden of proof.
If their case was wrong, then this ruling clearly violates the tenth amendment,  which guarantees the state government or the people control over anything not specifically granted to the federal government. Therefore, if nothing in the Constitution guarantees the right to gay marriage, then it can only be guaranteed at the state level.
Argument one: Incestuous marriage is still illegal at the national level, as is polygamy, or marriage to animals or inanimate objects. Therefore there is not a right to get married to whatever one pleases, and the definition of marriage remains defined by the states, as also guaranteed by amendment 10. If a state were to create an amendment deeming heterosexual marriage not real marriage, (despite a huge uproar) it would be able to legally stand.
Argument two: Couples that filed suit did in part because traveling to or moving to states that didn't recognize same-sex marriage from states that did recognize it supposedly violated "equal protection," as talked about in amendment 14. As you can see from the section I pulled out, this is only talking about equal protection for people living or visiting that state. ("...nor deny to any person within its [the state's] jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.") If this amendment said that the entire country had equal protections, then you could systematically eliminate all differences in state law from state to state.
So, if same-sex couples were searching for equal protection within their state, then they would be saying that not being allowed to marry damaged them financially, or socially. But of course, in order to argue this, you must have the state adhere to your definition of marriage, and states that banned gay marriage usually have marriage defined as between one man and one woman. Therefore, the plaintiff's argument is invalid, since it is impossible for a man and a man to enter a relationship between a man and a woman.
This is my first debate, so warn me if something is too abnormal.
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-10-07 23:16:44| Speak Round
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-10-12 23:17:01| Speak Round