Random Stranger (PRO)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, [1] 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 [2] 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, [3] 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.
1: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
2: http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment14.html
3: http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment10.html
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-10-07 10:16:44
| Speak Round
lannan13 (CON)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-10-12 10:17:01
| Speak Round
@cooldudebro
I am not quite sure what your point is, but okay.
*Advocates for a particular viewpoint due to evidence or personal belief*
That is how it kinda has been for most people.
*Certain people may band together to support that viewpoint*
It is a common ideology that people share.
*Pays no regard for personal views and automatically calls them biased in an attempt to disregard argument*
The point I am making is that they are biased, not trying to attack their arguments. I think it is pretty clear that these people holding ideologically consistent views are biased towards what they believe.Posted 2016-10-16 05:34:06
@BioHazard
I'm sorry bro but I have to do this.
*Advocates for a particular viewpoint due to evidence or personal belief*
*Certain people may band together to support that viewpoint*
*Pays no regard for personal views and automatically calls them biased in an attempt to disregard argument*
Posted 2016-10-15 20:43:09
@Random Stranger
If you hold consistent ideological views, then you are likely biased.
Conservatives oppose gay marriage, and want it to be left to the states or federally banned. People who are pro-gay marriage believe that it is federally guaranteed. Hardly ever do you see a person who opposes gay marriage but accept it as federally guaranteed, or advocate for it, but accept it as being left to the states. It is ideological bias and constitutional interpretation. The U.S. constitution is really about interpretation, and liberals and conservatives both believe they have the "correct" interpretation. Posted 2016-10-15 15:41:08
*comes along and argues thatPosted 2016-10-15 12:20:44
@Random Stranger Constitutions are always conservative because you conserve that constitution. Legal precedent is probably the ultimate form of conservatism ever. At least until somebody comes along and agrees that
New Zealand doesn't have a formally written-up constitution at all, and is far removed from an anarchy. We have a so-called "constitution act" that explains basic procedures for how government runs, but it's not any higher in standing than other laws. That's not to say having a constitution is wrong, but having it for 300 years with what I would consider to be minimal changes is definitely pushing it.
I totally agree that laws ought to be interpreted consistently. That is not to say that every law should be interpreted forever. At the point where people feel the need to stretch a law both ways, you can pretty safely say that the law has become relatively archaic. So it is with much of the US constitution. I am certain that if the constitution were re-written today by the best legal experts in America, what would come out would look different in many ways, and would probably serve the country better.
To be absolutely fair, we did convict a prime minister of offences under the Magna Carta once, but nobody really gets nearly as upset about that as they do the US constitution lol. It seems wherever I go, Americans on all sides just bicker about it. I think it's almost become a cultural thing to love the constitution, without really thinking about whether it will continue to work as well for the next 300 years.Posted 2016-10-15 12:20:24
@admin We can make modifications to the constitution by getting the approval of 2/3 of the congress. It's a good thing too, because without this process, states could still take away women's right to vote or legalize slavery. I have no objections to a legal amendment to the constitution. What I fear is manipulating the current constitution.
I don't know what politics are like in New Zeland, but public opinion, congress, and the Supreme Court are virtually evenly split between conservative and liberal in the U.S. This makes it extremely hard for progress on either side to happen. So, in my opinion, leaders stretch the constitution just a bit, or misuse power granted by it to pass their agenda. One example would be President Obama using an executive order to grant amnesty to a certain number of illegal immigrants. Regardless of one's stance on immigration, the more typical method would be to petition congress to vote on it, but Obama knew that it would never pass.
Misusing the constitution is akin to anarchy in my mind because like I said, you can't just decide to leave out one section and not expect other people to leave out the rest.Posted 2016-10-15 11:59:52
BlablablaPosted 2016-10-15 10:00:56
Blooga bligga bloo bloopPosted 2016-10-15 10:00:53
Hmmm... It looks like some member of my household put gibberish on here...Posted 2016-10-15 09:19:08
@Random Stranger Sure but it's left you the most conservative country in the world, with the possible exception of Saudi Arabia. Ideologically there comes a point where it's worth questioning values from time to time, to see if they continue to hold up. This is why, for example, people question gay marriage in the first place. It is true that gays have not traditionally married, but in light of changing social norms, gay marriage may be defensible.
In the same way, one might question whether the constitution is optimally fulfilling its purpose of providing a more perfect union for your country. Nobody seriously believes the constitution is totally perfect, right? So why not look at it critically? Being skeptical of the constitution doesn't inherently involve manipulating it for an ideology, but the constitution itself is by nature and design ideological - it's democratic, conservative, etc. Half of it is currently not even in force.Posted 2016-10-15 08:40:39
Blooga bligga bloo bloopPosted 2016-10-15 07:06:49
BlablablaPosted 2016-10-15 04:47:55
@admin
How could I not respect the Constitution so much? It is in a sense, our country. It outlines what the government can and can't do, and that's a big deal. Any manipulation for any ideology, I believe, is very dangerous, because if we can change x, why can't we change y? Posted 2016-10-15 04:40:37
@Random Stranger Whoops forgot the tagPosted 2016-10-13 19:16:51
Why do you respect the constitution so much?Posted 2016-10-13 19:16:27
I like to think that I am not biased here: I am personally opposed to legalizing recreational marijuana, but I respect states rights to do so, since the Constitution doesn't talk on the subject. Now, you don't see many liberals advocating for a federal right to mariajana, because they know they can't win. But, if you are really passionate about an issue, and you want to roast those "mean ol' conservatives," you might just find a loop hole, and take it to court.Posted 2016-10-13 12:46:22
What happened? Posted 2016-10-12 12:14:44
I'm not going to give my input on that yet because my points would likely appear in the debate later.Posted 2016-10-09 11:26:44
This is exactly what I expected. The way this debate is titled implied, specifically "federally" guaranteed gay marriage violates the U.S. constitution, but not necessarily state marriage laws is what I got out of the affirmatives motive just by reading the title.
Conservatives have been arguing it widespread. Which tells something about their true motive considering that the people who argue this just so happen to be against gay marriage. It would be surprising to have someone opposed to gay marriage but admit it is unconstitutional to deny it to anyone or have someone strongly advocate for equal marriage laws to anyone but admit that gay marriage really is up to the states.
Just shows how stupidly biased people are and how it shapes their views, and what is really ironic is nobody is willing to admit that they are controlled by their bias and don't really believe on what they actually think is reasonable. People just tend to think they are the only reasonable thinkers.Posted 2016-10-07 13:06:25
I may not be arguing in the way you would expect.Posted 2016-10-07 10:05:26
This should be interesting.Posted 2016-10-07 09:21:09