Reasons to Oppose Gay Marriage

[tanstaafl28]

What does love have to do with marriage? The state cannot measure love. It is irrelevant here. Marriage is a contract. It has traditionally been defined as a contract between a man and a woman. Any man can enter into a contract with any woman for the purpose of marriage. There are some people who would like to change this definition. There isn't a 14th amendment argument here. Men and women aren't equal. They aren't the same. No more than a Doctor isn't equal to a lawyer such that I cannot contract with a doctor to represent me in court. Men and women are different entities. A gay man cannot legally enter a woman's restroom. A lesbian woman cannot use a man's restroom. The courts do not care about a person's sexuality in recognizing a marriage contract just as they don't recognize the term love. So, while two men love each other and they may or may not be gay isn't relevant. They have no inherent right to the contract our society calls marriage.

Greetings Iselsd,

I do not know you, but I have been with the same woman for 15 years, and I asked her to marry because I loved her and I wanted to spend my life with her. The controversy here is not about the right to go into opposite-gender bathrooms, nor is it about whether the genders are equal or not. The controversy is whether it is legal, or conscionable, to abuse the power of government to obstruct consensual adults from being allowed to make a major life-decision for themselves. This goes against every principle and ideal our democratic-republic was founded upon and has come to stand for. The majority is not always right, and in such a case, the government is constitutionally mandated to make certain we are all treated equally under the law. As long as same-sex couples are not permitted to freely marry in all 50 states, and all territories, we are permitting an injustice to occur. There is no philosophical or legal justification for defining marriage by gender.

The definition of marriage in this nation has changed greatly since its founding. Right up into the 20th Century, women in general (and married women specifically) had no rights to own property, vote, or make business contracts of any kind without the permission of their husbands. Women were essentially the "property" of their husbands. Also, it was extremely difficult to get a divorce in this country, and those that were granted were severely limiting (some prohibited the guilty party from ever marrying again). As late as 1966, there were still 17 states in the Union that had laws banning interracial marriage. It took the Supreme Court (in Loving V. Virginia) to strike down these laws. In handing down their argument for the majority, the Supreme Court stated:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Loving v. Virginia Majority Brief

So clearly, marriage has become something other than what it once was, and that is just in the 235 years that this nation has been in existence. It will continue to change. Already judges have ruled against laws prohibiting same-sex marriages as being unconstitutional, and it is only a matter of time before same-sex spouses are granted the same rights, benefits, and responsibilities, as opposite-sex spouses have enjoyed for quite some time. These are tangible rights that have been recognized in another Supreme Court case in 1996, Romer vs. Evans, in which a same-sex marriage ban in Colorado was overturned. Several other states have had their same-sex marriage laws overturned for violating the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Some Information on Same-sex Marriage for further research

State By State: The Legal Battle over Gay Marriage

Same-Sex Marrage: A Selective Bibliography of the Legal Literature

[Someguy]

Unless it violated the Constitution, specifically the 14h Amendment. Equal Protection under the Law. If people really, really wanted to, we could pass an amendment to contradict #14, but no law can do so.

Like I said, if people wanted to badly enough, they could get it done. Changing the Constitution (assuming it would be declared unconstitutional should a law like that got passed.) would be an example of 'getting it done'

You see, the states cannot create laws that do not offer Equal Protection under the Law. I know I'm reiterating, but it's true. The 14th Amendment was specifically written for that purpose.

Yes, I am quite familiar with the Constitution. First thing that you learn about it is that it is very ambiguous. Laws can be interpreted by one party to be perfectly fine and by another to be unconstitutional in nature.

Example : Obamacare.

I am quite sure that opinions on this site alone would be split on the issue. I could make a strong case for why it is obviously unconstitutional while someone could make an argument for it not being. States can, for the most part, make any law that they want. Someone or something can come along and challenge that law and after a process it can be determined to be one way or the other. The same exact issue can be bought up 50 years later and ruled to be another way. Point is, there are very very few things that are rock solid cases of Constitutionally and the opposite. This is clearly not one of them.

Telling people they can't get married (and thus are not entitled to the 1000+ legal benefits of marriage) is clearly a violation of that.

If it was such a clear cut case of a violation, then pray tell, why do most states still only recognize and allow marriages to be between one man and one woman?

Yes, we're split, but you should also note that approval for gays has been constantly on the rise for a long time now. There was a time when the divide wasn't so even.

True enough.

I have a problem with that, because it seems eerily like "Separate but Equal". Why deny them the term marriage? They don't follow your religion, so why restrict them with it?

Them not following my religion doesnt give them a free ticket to spit in the face of things that I would be extremely sensitive about. For instance, if I wanted to market a new idea that I had for people that had food fetishes and this particular idea was for gay couples using pig products. I am pretty sure that hell would be raised if I wanted to call that new idea ' Quran '. Or if I wanted to build the store next to a Islamic place of worship. I would wager that many of the people complaining and calling me insensitive would be the same ones that would be choosing not to be sensitive to Christian beliefs and terms.

On a completely different note, I dont have a problem with 'Separate but Equal' there are things, places, and people that simply cannot co-exist. Trying to force them into the same realm to fit some ideological pretense just doesnt work. Like wild cats and dogs....just doesnt work. Thats another issue though.

To some people, specifically the Christian religious. To gays, it probably isn't, or, if it is, they think God's okay with it. It makes no sense to force others to follow the beliefs of a different religion. What entitles Christians to deny others entry?

Calling 'marriage' something between one man and one woman =/= forcing others to accept Christian beliefs.

No, I think "homosexual Liberals" want to have their bonding called "marriage" because they want to get married. No one fantasizes about proposing to their significant other with the phrase "will you civilly unite with me".

Im sure that plays a part to some of them. Just like I am sure that sticking it to Christians plays a part for others.

"Sensitive nature"? Why not be sensitive and just let the gays get married? It does no harm to their marriages or their lives, so why deny them that happiness (and those legal privileges).

You can. Just call it something else. Unite and be happy. No skin off my back. Just dont piss on my beliefs to get to that point is all Im asking.

Plenty of gays believe in God, you know. They just don't think he hates gay people. You can't exactly prove them wrong; it's just their religion.

Im sure that there are some 'religious' gays. I dont see how you pointing this out adds to the discussion.

This is unprovable stereotyping.

Im sure that most stereotypes are "unprovable" by how you mean it. Social observations and burdens of proof do not generally co-relate. Just because something is "unprovable" doesnt mean that it is not right or wrong. Again, though, we are sidetracking.

I would have you know that there are plenty of "homosexual Liberals" out there who are good people. Many are religious.

Yes...Im not ignorant enough to think otherwise. Just because someone holds a different opinion than your own doesnt mean that they are ignorant / uninformed / lives in Alabama. Unwarranted profiling is no good way to go about debating, you know.

How so? I don't see gays trying to prevent Christians from getting married.

The point of hypocrisy I was referring to was pretty obvious. What you said above would be ANOTHER example of hypocrisy, were it the case. If you say one thing and do the exact opposite, you are being hypocritical, no?

[Ibelsd]

Greetings Iselsd,

I do not know you, but I have been with the same woman for 15 years, and I asked her to marry because I loved her and I wanted to spend my life with her. The controversy here is not about the right to go into opposite-gender bathrooms, nor is it about whether the genders are equal or not. The controversy is whether it is legal, or conscionable, to abuse the power of government to obstruct consensual adults from being allowed to make a major life-decision for themselves. This goes against every principle and ideal our democratic-republic was founded upon and has come to stand for. The majority is not always right, and in such a case, the government is constitutionally mandated to make certain we are all treated equally under the law. As long as same-sex couples are not permitted to freely marry in all 50 states, and all territories, we are permitting an injustice to occur. There is no philosophical or legal justification for defining marriage by gender.

Did you and wife have to prove your love before getting married? In terms of bathrooms and such, I am simple demonstrating that men and women aren't equivalent. Saying marriage is between a man and woman is an inherently different union than one between two men or two women. As such, there is simply no 14th amendment issue here in my eyes.

The definition of marriage in this nation has changed greatly since its founding. Right up into the 20th Century, women in general (and married women specifically) had no rights to own property, vote, or make business contracts of any kind without the permission of their husbands. Women were essentially the "property" of their husbands. Also, it was extremely difficult to get a divorce in this country, and those that were granted were severely limiting (some prohibited the guilty party from ever marrying again). As late as 1966, there were still 17 states in the Union that had laws banning interracial marriage. It took the Supreme Court (in Loving V. Virginia) to strike down these laws. In handing down their argument for the majority, the Supreme Court stated:



Loving v. Virginia Majority Brief

So clearly, marriage has become something other than what it once was, and that is just in the 235 years that this nation has been in existence. It will continue to change. Already judges have ruled against laws prohibiting same-sex marriages as being unconstitutional, and it is only a matter of time before same-sex spouses are granted the same rights, benefits, and responsibilities, as opposite-sex spouses have enjoyed for quite some time. These are tangible rights that have been recognized in another Supreme Court case in 1996, Romer vs. Evans, in which a same-sex marriage ban in Colorado was overturned. Several other states have had their same-sex marriage laws overturned for violating the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Some Information on Same-sex Marriage for further research

State By State: The Legal Battle over Gay Marriage

Same-Sex Marrage: A Selective Bibliography of the Legal Literature

[/QUOTE]
Societal definitions change and I am not arguing this point. I am arguing the idea that the proper remedy is a series of court decisions which enforces a minority definition of marriage on the majority for reasons which have no real legal basis (i.e. bogus 14th amendment claims). Should the people vote on such a change in definition, fine. Should elected representatives make a law which changes the definition, fine. I just oppose this change occurring in the court. I find it despotic and dictatorial sprinkled with elitist snobbery.

[futureboy]

As such, there is simply no 14th amendment issue here in my eyes.

then your eyes deceive you, I'm afraid. you're confusing the 14th amendment argument with the definition of marriage issue, which are two separate issues. the 14th amendment argument is built on the simple fact that it states that all persons are entitled to equal protection of the law, and as there are no exceptions specified for persons of different sexual orientation, to deny some persons protections would not be equal protection and, therefore, unconstitutional. it's a really simple argument.
then there's the whole definition of marriage thing, which is a completely different issue - both legally and logically, and as such must not be confused with the 14th amendment, which has no mention of such a definition, so your toilet humour has no bearing on the 14th amendment argument.

enforces a minority definition of marriage on the majority

a definition that says marriage is between two persons would be a majority definition, for which there is a great legal basis.

I just oppose this change

you are free to go and oppose it. have fun!

---------- Post added at 02:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:16 AM ----------

This is clearly not one of them.

please support this claim.

If it was such a clear cut case of a violation, then pray tell, why do most states still only recognize and allow marriages to be between one man and one woman?

you answered your own question when you accepted an understanding of this:

Yes, we're split, but you should also note that approval for gays has been constantly on the rise for a long time now. There was a time when the divide wasn't so even.

also, your question is a pretty weak reason to disagree with JohnLocke's statement of violation. you should try to produce a better rationalisation.

Them not following my religion doesnt give them a free ticket to spit in the face of things that I would be extremely sensitive about.

false dichotomy. this same argument can be used by other religions that accept same-sex marriages, so it's inadmissible and ignorant. also, such arguments do not provide compelling reasons to deny equal rights because they're founded on religious views, and smack of prejudice.

For instance,....

your examples are absurd, as the issues resulting from them, the legalistic aspects, and the cultural reaction to them are in no way similar to our discussion.

...Christian beliefs and terms.

again, ignorant of other beliefs. freedom of religion implies a freedom from religion, as well. you have no right to force something on others simply because you believe it is mandated by the bible.

Calling 'marriage' something between one man and one woman

you can call it whatever you want, but you can't deny others the right to call it what they want.

I am sure that sticking it to Christians plays a part for others.

again, prejudiced and ignorant.

Unwarranted profiling is no good way to go about debating

no kidding? see above.

[Someguy]

"Future"boy : You are my favorite type of "debater" You look up words like "ignorant" and other insulting words and structure them in insulting ways to make up for a lack of actual debating skills or ability to form logical arguments. lol.

Anyway, moving on....

You keep going on about the14th Amendment and how it makes it so that offering marriage to only male - female couples and therefore denying it to gay couples is unconstitutional. It is painfully clear that you have absolutely no clue as to what you are talking about and that is proven very easily by an observation that even my 8 year old could see.....

If it is as you are blabbering on about....WHY IS IT IN MOST STATES THAT ONLY MALE AND FEMALE COUPLES CAN MARRY?

No legal battle, no law suit, no amount of complaining has managed to convince any high court that it is indeed a violation of the 14th Amendment or unconstitutional on any other grounds. Not only today, but since the beginning of the country. Hell, even the 9th Circus court has not ruled this to be so....damned if that doesnt tell you something...

To use one of your favorite words, it is pretty ignorant (yay, now I am cool like you) to sit here and ramble on and on about how its such a clear cut case of Unconstitutionality when it has not been proven to be so in spite of many many attempts to make it be judged as so. Pretty ignorant indeed.

The rest of that rambling doesnt really amount to much...so, I will just leave it there.

[futureboy]

WHY IS IT IN MOST STATES THAT ONLY MALE AND FEMALE COUPLES CAN MARRY

again, this question based on a simple observation, as if it were an actual argument, now upgraded to all-caps! as I stated in my last post, you answered your own question when you agreed with JL's comment about how the times are changing. as such, this questioning-non-argument can be dismissed as it is dependent on the present situation. the word "MOST" is a variable that changes with time, as you yourself agreed. repeating the question again repeatedly in another post doesn't really amount to much, so let's just leave it there, ok?

when it has not been proven to be so

you're quite wrong there.

now, to address the sudden outburst of personal attacks you seem to think have been justified by my supposedly incorrect use of "insulting words". I assume you are referring to the words "ignorant" and "prejudiced".
when I said your argument of non-followers spitting in the face of christian views was ignorant, I was referring to the fact that you are ignoring all the religious views and denominations that accept gay marriage and homosexuals in general, who might say that you not following their religion doesn't give you the right to spit in the face of their religious views. that's what a false dichotomy is - an argument that is ignorant of other variants, seeing only two sides.
and again, when you said you were sure that the motivation of some gays was to stick it to Christians. you are ignoring the real reasons homosexuals are fighting for their rights, and I doubt you have ever learned first-hand how they feel about the issue.
next, to explain your prejudice, it's really quite simple: you seem to be judging the gays' reasons for fighting for their rights simply as being petty and anti-christian. the observations you make of their motivations have them sticking it to christians and spitting in their faces, and are guilty of the same "unwarranted profiling" for which you criticised JL. your attack of my debating and choice of words is also guilty of this.

I guess the ignorance, prejudice, unwarranted profiling, and personal attacks are those "debating skills" that you so eloquently lolled at me about.
however logically formed you think your "arguments" are, they seem to be nothing more that mere observations. observations like "yeah well, most states don't do it", and "those gays just hate christians", [Simple Flame Removed], if that helps you.
they are nothing but prejudiced, ignorant observations, which don't really amount to much in terms of an argument.
I know some guys are better at debating than this, and than me. maybe some guy - not you - will come along and teach us all how to debate perfectly. who's that guy? he's the guy that makes rational arguments without needing to make personal attacks. you must be the other guy.

[Someguy]

again, this question based on a simple observation, as if it were an actual argument, now upgraded to all-caps! as I stated in my last post, you answered your own question when you agreed with JL's comment about how the times are changing. as such, this questioning-non-argument can be dismissed as it is dependent on the present situation. the word "MOST" is a variable that changes with time, as you yourself agreed. repeating the question again repeatedly in another post doesn't really amount to much, so let's just leave it there, ok?

Times are changing....great. Has nothing to do with the point being discussed. The question was : Are there any legitimate reasons to ban gay marriage. The answer is : Any reason is legitimate enough if enough people wish it to be so. And regardless of the current laws in place or any constitutional argument, if enough people wish for gay marriage to be illegal....or for the color blue to be the only legal color to wear on Tuesdays....then it can be made to be so. [Simple flame removed]

you're quite wrong there.

Yet, you dont offer any proof to support your claim. You cant just stand up on your soap box and rant on about how you want things and pretend to pass that off as fact. The FACT of the matter is that defining marriage as something that is STRICTLY between one man and one woman and therefore denying that term to gay couple has N-E-V-E-R been PROVEN to be unconstitutional. [Simple flame removed]

however logically formed you think your "arguments" are, they seem to be nothing more that mere observations. observations like "yeah well, most states don't do it", and "those gays just hate christians", [Simple Flame Removed], if that helps you.
they are nothing but prejudiced, ignorant observations, which don't really amount to much in terms of an argument.
I know some guys are better at debating than this, and than me.

And yet, they are simple observations that completely crush your argument. [Phrase removed]

You : Banning gay marriage is unconstitutional because of the 14th amendment!!?!?!?!!1111
Me : Then why is it that the vast majority of the states ban gay marriage and despite numerous lawsuits and years of effort, no court has ever once declared that banning gay marriage a constitutional violation?
You : Umm......you proved my point!!!111 blah blah blah....

You may THINK that it is violation of the 14th Amendment. But it never has been PROVEN to be so.

Your position that gay marriage bans violate the 14th amendment is an OPINION :

o·pin·ion   [uh-pin-yuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2.
a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

The fact that it is never been proven to be so is a FACT :

fact   [fakt] Show IPA
noun
1.
something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2.
something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3.
a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.

See the difference? Probably not. So, in short, your entire argument seems to boil down to you having an opinion that you are trying to pass off as fact and anyone that holds a different opinion is a racist, bigot, fag-hater, religious zealot, ignorant, prejudiced, Bible thumping, Conservative. You as a sensitive, tolerant Lib should be ashamed of yourself =p.

maybe some guy - not you - will come along and teach us all how to debate perfectly. who's that guy? he's the guy that makes rational arguments without needing to make personal attacks. you must be the other guy.

You arent too good at being witty and insulting at the same time...LOL. Stick to your strengths....whatever they are.

[futureboy]

again, with the personal attacks and unwarranted profiling. that isn't going to win you any credit here, my friend.
I don't see how any of us "Libs" have been "bitching and moaning" about the way it is, or calling anyone not agreeing the names you listed. please enlighten.
also, you seem to be unable to respond to the rebuttals made to your points other than calling them fantasy land wishes, and are only repeating previously discredited arguments without explaining how they stand up to scrutiny.
the "opinion" that a prohibition of gay marriage is unconstitutional - however disputable - can be observed in rulings already made by judges, most notably that of Proposition 8.
you can boil down my arguments any way you want, but you haven't accurately responded to the points I made in my first post about your reply to JohnLocke, and your increasing belligerence will not make up for that.
I would like to apologise to everyone that my initial pointing out of the prejudice and ignorance in your reply to JohnLocke has led you down this road, although I do believe that I later supported those points by accurately explaining in more detail how they applied to the ideas in your post, not to you as a person. perhaps I was to direct with my wording of "prejudiced, ignorant observations", and if so I am sorry.
if anyone can help sort this out, it would be much appreciated.

[mican333]

Times are changing....great. Has nothing to do with the point being discussed. The question was : Are there any legitimate reasons to ban gay marriage. The answer is : Any reason is legitimate enough if enough people wish it to be so. And regardless of the current laws in place or any constitutional argument, if enough people wish for gay marriage to be illegal....or for the color blue to be the only legal color to wear on Tuesdays....then it can be made to be so.

If you mean that if enough people agree with something they can get their representatives to alter the constitution, you are right. We could even legalize slavery with that kind of popular support. BUT the reality is that kind of support for banning gay marriage does not exist. Right now it seems that opinion is evenly split and is steadily heading towards acceptance of gay marriage.

I would say that a reason has to actually exist to be considered legally valid and the kind of consensus it would take to alter the constitution to ban gay marriage does not exist nor is there reason to believe that it will anytime soon.

Yet, you dont offer any proof to support your claim.

Here is support.

First off, the state of legally-recognized marriage provides the couple with numerous legal protections for their union.


On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:
parenting;
joint adoption;
joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
crime victims' recovery benefits;
loss of consortium tort benefits;
domestic violence protection orders;
judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;

http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm

Much of this is supported with public moneys. Gays pay the same taxes as straight people and yet their unions are denied the legal protections that are offered to straight couples. It seems pretty clear that being denied equal protection of the law violates people's right to equal protection of the law.

You may THINK that it is violation of the 14th Amendment. But it never has been PROVEN to be so.

For the purpose of this debate, that doesn't matter. The way debate works here is that one side supports its position with a supported argument (which I have done) and if the other side is to rebut that position, it needs to provide a valid, supported counter-argument. So I don't need to prove my position. I just need to support it. And I have. So now either provide a supported counter-argument or my supported argument stands.

[Someguy]

If you mean that if enough people agree with something they can get their representatives to alter the constitution, you are right. We could even legalize slavery with that kind of popular support. BUT the reality is that kind of support for banning gay marriage does not exist.

I never said that the support exists to outright ban gay marriage. My response was to the OP which asked if there are any legitimate reasons to actually ban gay marriage. I said, and stand by, that any reason at all would be legitimate if enough people said it was so.

Lets address the OP more thoroughly and define legitimate :

le·git·i·mate   [adj., n. li-jit-uh-mit; v. li-jit-uh-meyt]
adjective, verb, -mat·ed, -mat·ing, noun
adjective
1.
according to law; lawful: the property's legitimate owner.
2.
in accordance with established rules, principles, or standards.
3.
in accordance with the laws of reasoning; logically inferable; logical: a legitimate conclusion.

So, using the given definition, if the masses decided that it was law that gay couples could not marry, then it would, by definition, be legitimate.

Right now it seems that opinion is evenly split and is steadily heading towards acceptance of gay marriage.

Regardless of whether this is true or not, it is irrelevant to the debate at hand. The OP is not presented as : 'Is it probable that gay marriage could be made illegal.'

We can argue over the definition of the word legitimate or the interpretation of the OP, but the point I am making here is solid.

I would say that a reason has to actually exist to be considered legally valid and the kind of consensus it would take to alter the constitution to ban gay marriage does not exist nor is there reason to believe that it will anytime soon.

Again, this debate isnt centered on the probability of banning gay marriage occurring. As for a reason existing to be considered legally valid, that too is easily addressed by the simple understanding that with enough support, any law could be enacted and the Constitution would not be able to stop it. If we, en mass, decided that the color blue was to only be worn on Sundays, it would be so. If we, en mass, decided that the Freedom of Speech was to go bye-bye, we could make it happen and it would be a legitimate.

Granted, the likelihood of that happening is very very small....it is not zero. Thats a side point, though.

Much of this is supported with public moneys. Gays pay the same taxes as straight people and yet their unions are denied the legal protections that are offered to straight couples. It seems pretty clear that being denied equal protection of the law violates people's right to equal protection of the law.

I will ask the question again : If it is such an obvious and clear cut example of the violating the 14th amendment...then way is it that even after all of these years and numerous challenges, it has never been declared to be so?

There are only so many ways to declare if something is unconstitutional or not. Im not 100% sure, but, I feel pretty confident in that this site and its members arent one of those ways. You can have the OPINION that it is a violation, but that holds absolutely no value in reality.

The equal protections clause has been used to challenge many many things through-out time. It is not used as a bases in many judgement however. One example coming to mind would be the challenges against insurance companies giving some people insurance and denying others. Or a bank giving a loan to some people and denying others. But again, we are derailing from the OP here. If we are to continue this topic of debate it should be done so in another thread.

For the purpose of this debate, that doesn't matter.

Yeah, you are right. A point I have driven home, above. Moving on.

The way debate works here is that one side supports its position with a supported argument (which I have done) and if the other side is to rebut that position, it needs to provide a valid, supported counter-argument.

Thats how it is done in most debates. This isnt my first rodeo.

[futureboy]

.....if the masses decided that it was law that gay couples could not marry, then it would, by definition, be legitimate.....
.....As for a reason existing to be considered legally valid, that too is easily addressed by the simple understanding that with enough support, any law could be enacted and the Constitution would not be able to stop it.

apparently, an understanding too simple and too easily addressed for it to stand up to scrutiny. if, could, and would are forms that are not included in the realm of existing. these forms are reserved for questions of probability and the non-existent - one of them is even called "the unreal conditional" - and are not part of this debate, as you said yourself.
even your question, which you repeat over and over, also fails to provide an existing reason, as the violation of the 14th has already been proven in rulings like Prop. 8, and will only continue to be proven in the future.
for someone who criticises others for supposedly looking up words in a dictionary, you seem to enjoy finding definitions that support your arguments. however, you should really take a look at the 3rd definition of "legitimate" you listed, and think about how it applies to your arguments, reasoning, and logic before posting.

[MindTrap028]

I didn't say it was illegal to hold any view. when the OP asked for existing legally valid reasons to ban gay marriage, you provided none, other than stating that were a majority that wanted to ban gay marriage to exist, its view would be legally valid. but it doesn't, so there aren't. bans on gay marriage have repeatedly been overturned for the lack of a ruling majority to support them. hence, there are no legally valid reasons to ban gay marriage.

No, the legally valid reason is "people don't want to use the word in that sense". That is a legally valid argument and all that is necessary.
It doesn't stop being legally valid just because it isn't the "majority" view, and I would contend that it currently IS the majority view.

this contradicts your original reasoning of might makes right. the meaning of a word changes based on the social definition of it, as you and others have stated. if a large enough part of society accepts a meaning of a word, then by your logic it is legally valid. the recent changes in the socially accepted meaning of marriage reflect this, and demonstrate the slow progression societal thought to policy. think of it as learning.

No I was saying it is not legally valid for a minority to force a word meaning change on the majority based only on their "desire" to use the word.

explain, please.

Because the Gov must define the service it is giving, and that IS defining marriage, which you said the gov shouldn't do.

again, explain, please, how the government's job is not what I stated it to be. I don't disagree with your example of what the government's job is, and there are many ways to express what are the functions of government. I was saying that the government should not dictate the meaning of marriage, because that would be against one of the principle functions of the government.

See above.

nobody is doing this. and in any case, it is not for you to judge the reasons why people would appeal to the government, following your original position.

That is exactly the reasoning offered several times for why we should allow gay marriage. (maybe not in this thread I can't remember), but it is not new, and people are using that position.
Also, it is not contradictory to my position for me to say that it is a 'bad way' of going about it.

you can, and in some situations you should and must in others. that doesn't mean you are discriminating in the way that gays are being discriminated against. I am not gay, by the way, and I'm not against religions that don't support gay marriage. I just think it's morally reprehensible for someone to use their religion to justify attempts to control the lives of others.

This entire discussion is about control, and MAKING people call you something. There is no moral high ground in reasoning that isn't founded in some church.
In the end, it is all the same thing forcing people to call you something. The argument for "rights" is a red-herring, because if the real goal were for "rights" they would gladly accept an equally rights filled alternate word. The real battle is about society and that is outside of the Gov job IMO.

one of the main reasons we study history can be demonstrated with that simple statement. luckily, we have a wealth of history to draw upon when making decisions on changes that will affect our society as a whole in the future. and the change is happening, believe it or not.

So, the point is where we stand. Currently we stand in a culture that recognizes marriage as between a man and a woman. It doesn't matter which way the wind is blowing.

it is unfortunate that the historical definition being exclusive to men and women is now being used to justify this discrimination. the reason for the definition being such is that when the law was created and the terms were being defined, it was a mere observation at that time which specified the definition. that, coupled with a lack of foresight, is the reason we are now in this situation.

This is nothing but a lamentation for what the word really means to society.
To bad, it doesn't mean what you want it to mean, how unfortunate words aren't generally accepted as you would have them.

fortunately, though, as can be seen in many places, things are starting to change for the better. all that remains is for others to realize the mistakes of the past and repent.

There is no "mistake" in how people define words. The only mistake so far is that a word needs to be applied in order for acceptance to be "legit". It is nothing but a placebo.

[tanstaafl28]

Did you and wife have to prove your love before getting married? In terms of bathrooms and such, I am simple demonstrating that men and women aren't equivalent. Saying marriage is between a man and woman is an inherently different union than one between two men or two women. As such, there is simply no 14th amendment issue here in my eyes.

We did, in fact. We wrote our own vows and spoke them in front of witnesses. I do not see where the term "marriage" is in any way changed just because of genders. It seems to me that if we were talking about using the word "fish" to mean "bicycle" then you might have a point, but marriage already is a contractual partnership between two people who love each other, why should gender be an issue? We all do somethings together and other things seperately, gender should not be a justification to abuse the power of government to keep two people from being able to marry. I submit the equal protection clause is applicable in this instance because we are forcing others to live their lives the way we tell them. We are denying them access to the very ideals of: "...Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness..." that this nation was founded upon. What gives others the right to judge others in such a way? Let them go do their thing. It isn't going to change how I do mine.

Societal definitions change and I am not arguing this point. I am arguing the idea that the proper remedy is a series of court decisions which enforces a minority definition of marriage on the majority for reasons which have no real legal basis (i.e. bogus 14th amendment claims). Should the people vote on such a change in definition, fine. Should elected representatives make a law which changes the definition, fine. I just oppose this change occurring in the court. I find it despotic and dictatorial sprinkled with elitist snobbery.

This isn't about bogus 14th Amendment claims, and it isn't about despots, dictators, or elitist snobbery. When the majority of people are being irrational, who is going to set it right? Someone has to. Obviously, most people are unable to make sound judgements on this issue, so it falls to the courts. History is filled with examples of situations where, for one reason or another, the people did not want change, even in the face of fairly obvious injustice. In these instances, what would you recommend we do?

[mican333]

So, using the given definition, if the masses decided that it was law that gay couples could not marry, then it would, by definition, be legitimate.

Right, "IF". And IF the masses have not decided that (and that is the case), then what it takes to amend the constitution does not exist and therefore the "valid" reason you are referring to does not exist either.

And likewise if a powerful alien race threatened to destroy the earth if we don't ban gay marriage and in reaction our representatives altered the constitution to ban gay marriage, then that would be a legally acceptable reason as well. But since that scenario doesn't exist as well, it is not an existing valid reason.

So no valid reason currently exists.

I will ask the question again : If it is such an obvious and clear cut example of the violating the 14th amendment...then way is it that even after all of these years and numerous challenges, it has never been declared to be so?

And I will point out that a question is not a rebuttal. If you have a rebuttal, then state it.

There are only so many ways to declare if something is unconstitutional or not. Im not 100% sure, but, I feel pretty confident in that this site and its members arent one of those ways. You can have the OPINION that it is a violation, but that holds absolutely no value in reality.

I am not declaring banning gay marriage unconstitutional in the kind of way that has any legal bearing. I am on a debate site and I have made a supported argument that it is unconstitutional. If you agree with me, we have nothing to debate. If you disagree with me, then it is your turn to make a supported counter-argument. If you (or anyone else here) can't or won't rebut by argument, then my argument stands as unrebutted.

And my argument is completely relevant to this debate. If gay marriage is unconstitutional and no legally valid overriding reason to ban gay marriage exists (and again the numbers to amend the constitution does not exist), then no legally valid reason to ban gay marriage exists.

---------- Post added at 10:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:22 AM ----------

This entire discussion is about control, and MAKING people call you something. There is no moral high ground in reasoning that isn't founded in some church.
In the end, it is all the same thing forcing people to call you something.

No, it's not. Regardless of what the government calls something, people always have the right to call things whatever they want to. There is no legal penalty for calling something something else so there is no force.

[futureboy]

thanks for getting back in the saddle, MindTrap! when you said your work here was done and disappeared, I thought you weren't kidding.

the legally valid reason is "people don't want to use the word in that sense"...It doesn't stop being legally valid just because it isn't the "majority" view

it is not legally valid for a minority to force a word meaning change on the majority based only on their "desire" to use the word

something's wrong here.
you're saying that even if the anti-gay marriage folks were in the minority, their desire to keep anyone from using the word in a way that goes against their views would be a legally valid reason? I'm not sure if that counts as a reason exclusive to your side of this debate, as anyone holding any view of how they want or don't want to use a word would have a legally valid argument as per your first statement. it's weird, because then you go on to say that a minority's "desire" (why the quotes, by the by?) for a definition of a word is not legally valid...help me out here.

Because the Gov must define the service it is giving, and that IS defining marriage, which you said the gov shouldn't do.

no, I said the government shouldn't dictate the definition of marriage. that's what the religious are trying to do, which is wrong. I see nothing wrong with the government accepting a definition that applies to the persons wanting to get married and receive the protections that they have an equal right to. that doesn't mean religions will be forced to accept a different definition than the one they want. anti-gay religions already don't marry people who don't fit their definition, which is fine, and the pro-gay religions already marry whoever they want, as per freedom of religion. the government, providing all persons equal protection under the law and freedom from religion, should marry whoever wants to get married outside of a church. why would that be so bad?

[MindTrap028]

No, it's not. Regardless of what the government calls something, people always have the right to call things whatever they want to. There is no legal penalty for calling something something else so there is no force.

That is false. If you are arguing for a legal status, then people MUST recognize it (legally). When they do that, they are calling you by that title. Bottom line.

So that laundry list of rights you were arguing for, are achieved (as you are approaching it), by "calling them something". The penalty is lawsuits and legal action.. so there are penalties for not 'calling' people by their legal title.

There is no getting around it, this is all about forcing people to call you something. If they 'believe it in their hearts' doesn't matter. It's like calling a judge "your honor", you may not believe he has any honor etc, but you dame well better address him by his title on penalty of law.

But lets test your hypothesis.
The gov can call you one thing, but I can call them whatever I want.. and private entities can call them whatever they want. So a gay man goes to a catholic hospital, and his "husband" says "We are married and I want to see my spouse". The private hospital says "no, your not married you can not see him".

Now you are going to tell me there will not be any legal action when the two men are "legally" married?
If there is (and there would be), then in what way are they "free" to call them whatever they want?

[futureboy]

this is all about forcing people to call you something. If they 'believe it in their hearts' doesn't matter.

again, an argument that doesn't seem to be exclusive to your side of this debate. by simply changing the words "forcing people to call you something" to "people forcing you to call yourself something", we can see that it doesn't matter if they believe it in their hearts, it's still wrong.

The private hospital says "no, your not married you can not see him".

your "test" of the "hypothesis" already exists, and can already happen. how are we avoiding this situation by denying gays the right to marry outside of a pro-gay church?

[MindTrap028]

again, an argument that doesn't seem to be exclusive to your side of this debate. by simply changing the words "forcing people to call you something" to "people forcing you to call yourself something", we can see that it doesn't matter if they believe it in their hearts, it's still wrong.

Well, lets go back a bit.

I just think it's morally reprehensible for someone to use their religion to justify attempts to control the lives of others.

This entire discussion is about control, and MAKING people call you something. There is no moral high ground in reasoning that isn't founded in some church.

So that is for context. As for "it's still wrong", I don't think that is supported. I certainly don't agree that its wrong for the gov to make you do things. Paying taxes come to mind, not killing people.

Now does the "making people do something" really apply to those who are trying to retain the current meaning of marriage? Not really, there is no force involved at all. We aren't forcing you to get a civil union, we are not forcing you to not call yourself "married", as mican pointed out you can call yourself whatever you like. So there is little "force" going on at all. On the other side, those that are seeking a change in the meaning are doing so through gov force (not even the legislation side). So it is clear which side is resorting to force.

your "test" of the "hypothesis" already exists, and can already happen. how are we avoiding this situation by denying gays the right to marry outside of a pro-gay church?

No, it is not tested. Because the hypothesis is that once they have the legal "title" that people will still be free to call them whatever they like. I contend that it will not be the case. The current situation is nothing like the hypothesis.

thanks for getting back in the saddle, MindTrap! when you said your work here was done and disappeared, I thought you weren't kidding.

Like a moth to a flame.. it doesn't really matter, I can say I won't post again all I like. No matter how hard I try.... it is going to happen. glad to be appreciated though.

you're saying that even if the anti-gay marriage folks were in the minority, their desire to keep anyone from using the word in a way that goes against their views would be a legally valid reason? I'm not sure if that counts as a reason exclusive to your side of this debate, as anyone holding any view of how they want or don't want to use a word would have a legally valid argument as per your first statement. it's weird, because then you go on to say that a minority's "desire" (why the quotes, by the by?) for a definition of a word is not legally valid...help me out here.

There are two issues.
1) what is legal
2) what is right.

The OP focuses in on the first, but the topic drifts into the second. So, it is a legally legit reason to seek what you want for both sides. I don't say it is illegal for pro-gay marriage to seek a change in laws or inclusion in the legal term. So that is consistent. However, I maintain that regarding the meaning of a word that is subject to what people think as a whole, it is wrong for the minority to try to dictate to the majority through litigation. The other portion is that I don't believe it is a legally valid way to go about changing the concept, because the gov shouldn't be in the business of marriage to begin with.
There is some confusion in the way I presented it, and for that I apologize. Trying to balance the 3 foundation points to my view is easy for me to screw up in presentation, refutation and application.

no, I said the government shouldn't dictate the definition of marriage. that's what the religious are trying to do, which is wrong. I see nothing wrong with the government accepting a definition that applies to the persons wanting to get married and receive the protections that they have an equal right to. that doesn't mean religions will be forced to accept a different definition than the one they want. anti-gay religions already don't marry people who don't fit their definition, which is fine, and the pro-gay religions already marry whoever they want, as per freedom of religion. the government, providing all persons equal protection under the law and freedom from religion, should marry whoever wants to get married outside of a church. why would that be so bad?

Well, I agree with that that is very much what I said the fix would be. I say that because the only way for the gov to do what you are saying is for gov to recognize that marriage is a religious act, and then get out of the marriage business all together. Basically that would leave the social issue up to the society and not reach for the gov to solve the problem.

So, as far as I can tell we agree that the gov should get out of the marriage business.

[Someguy]

Right, "IF". And IF the masses have not decided that (and that is the case), then what it takes to amend the constitution does not exist and therefore the "valid" reason you are referring to does not exist either.

And likewise if a powerful alien race threatened to destroy the earth if we don't ban gay marriage and in reaction our representatives altered the constitution to ban gay marriage, then that would be a legally acceptable reason as well. But since that scenario doesn't exist as well, it is not an existing valid reason.

So no valid reason currently exists.

I think the issue we are having is with how we are interpreting the OP. The direct question in the OP reads :


Are there any legitimate reasons to legally prohibit Gay Marriage?

I believe you are interpreting the question as :

"Are there any legitimate reasons to legally prohibit Gay Marriage as of right now?"

I am arguing from the position :

"Are there any legitimate reasons to legally prohibit Gay Marriage at all?"

As for the right now question. There is a very large segment of population that wants gay marriage banned I would remind you. As early as a few years ago there were serious calls for and discussions of defining marriage with a Constitutional Amendment, it is an idea that is still floating around in fact. Now, it doesnt appear that the support exists in sufficient number to ban gay marriage with a Constitutional Amendment. That is not the same as their not being enough. We all know that polls lie.

So, is there are legimate reason to ban it now? Perhaps, perhaps not. I felt like arguing over something that cannot be definitive proven one way or the other is pretty pointless (something that is done a lot in debates and something I tend to avoid. Lazy and all.) And instead focus on the question :

Are there any legitimate reasons to legally prohibit gay marriage at all.

Being that the OP did not clearly define the parameters of the OP, I feel like this is the more interesting position to argue.

And I will point out that a question is not a rebuttal. If you have a rebuttal, then state it.

Call it what you want, but the question I ask is the one that stands and has not be uprooted. And I asked the question first, so, of course it wasnt a rebuttal. Rebuttals come in response to something else. I restated a question that has not been answered.

I am not declaring banning gay marriage unconstitutional in the kind of way that has any legal bearing. I am on a debate site and I have made a supported argument that it is unconstitutional.

And I made the counter argument that it clearly is not unconstitutional by the simple observation that it has not be declared to be so by a body with the authority to name it so and that a majority of the states have marriage restricted to one male and one female couple. If you are to defeat this point, you must show where it has been determined to be unconstitutional by a body with the authority to name it so. Failing to do that, you accept my argument that it is indeed not unconstitutional and that the belief that it is, is absolutely nothing more than your personal opinion.

[futureboy]

the OP did not clearly define the parameters of the OP

maybe not clearly enough for you, but when I see a question in the present tense, I generally take that question to regard matters of the present tense, as most people, I'm sure, would do. adding "at all" to the end doesn't change the tense, and only adds the meaning "in any way" to the question.

And I asked the question first, so, of course it wasnt a rebuttal. Rebuttals come in response to something else. I restated a question that has not been answered.

this back-pedalling is where you lose the most credibility.
in response to JL's statement:
"Telling people they can't get married (and thus are not entitled to the 1000+ legal benefits of marriage) is clearly a violation of that."
you responded with the first version of your "question" (a rebuttal to his statement in the form of a question):
"If it was such a clear cut case of a violation, then pray tell, why do most states still only recognize and allow marriages to be between one man and one woman?"
which I answered by stating that you answered it yourself when you agreed with the fact that approval for gays had been on the rise for a long time. so when you took into account the notion that acceptance for gays changes with time, then your question could simply be answered by stating that, "at the present time, most states still only recognize and allow marriages to be between one man and one woman, but as you agreed, that will change with time", and so was a weak rebuttal of JL's statement of unconstitutionality because of its dependence on the present divide of opinion, which I explained to you.
I guess you didn't understand that, and instead wanted to repeat the question in all-caps, coupled with a personal attack for bonus effect:
"If it is as you are blabbering on about....WHY IS IT IN MOST STATES THAT ONLY MALE AND FEMALE COUPLES CAN MARRY?"
to which I responded by explaining again.
in a later post rife with personal attacks and unwarranted profiling, you expanded the question and paraphrased our exchange, clearly showing that your question was a rebuttal:
"You : Banning gay marriage is unconstitutional because of the 14th amendment!!?!?!?!!1111
Me : Then why is it that the vast majority of the states ban gay marriage and despite numerous lawsuits and years of effort, no court has ever once declared that banning gay marriage a constitutional violation?
You : Umm......you proved my point!!!111 blah blah blah...."
to which I replied by giving an example of an actual ruling of unconstitutionality.
and again later:
"I will ask the question again : If it is such an obvious and clear cut example of the violating the 14th amendment...then way is it that even after all of these years and numerous challenges, it has never been declared to be so? "
..ignoring anything that was said to you.
now you are requesting that we "show where it has been determined to be unconstitutional by a body with the authority to name it so", ignoring the examples given at least twice.
why do you do this? it doesn't make sense.