CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
While I personally find it questionable, I hardly see why we have any justification to prevent it. I see no compelling interest for the state to forbid it.
Really what is the difference, they are both immoral acts, and the incest part does not seem to harm anyone, and you claim that homosexuality harms no one, so you should not have an issue here
I do not read the bible, I am not a Christian, in fact I am not religious
Homosexual sex acts, are just immoral disgusting acts. Russia has it right
And again the offspring from two engaging in incest is not your concern. Just as two homosexuals getting it on is not my concern, but I will never accept that as normal or moral behavior
You clearly don't have a grasp of the word 'rape.' Homosexual sex (which is not always anal, by the way) is not inherently rape, as rape implies that one of the parties involved has not consented to sex.
So far, the only argument you have presented against homosexuality is that you think it is rape, which is false. Do you have any other arguments against homosexuality?
Also, you thinking that it's 'disgusting' is not a good reason to attack a large group of people.
Homosexual sex acts, are just immoral disgusting acts. Russia has it right
Then justify how they are immoral. Form an argument for once.
And again the offspring from two engaging in incest is not your concern. Just as two homosexuals getting it on is not my concern, but I will never accept that as normal or moral behavior
Why are you so self centered, to think they care if you accept it or not?
First, I have yet to do a "I know you are but what am I" response, so saying "Just following your lead" is employing ANOTHER "I know you are but what am I" right after the first.
oh we know your political ideology on the left. Social liberals are indeed leftists
For the third (?) time, I am not a liberal, and "leftist" is not an ideology.
if you don't know the difference between homosexual love and incest, then i'm afraid you have some growing up to do before you are ready for such discussions.
1. Logically, that definition is somewhat lacking. It actually defines one unknown (marriage) by means of another unkown (family).
Either there has to be a legal definition of "family",
or we should omit the "creating a familial relationship" part.
"Family is defined as “one or more persons occupying a single dwelling unit, provided that unless all members are related by blood or marriage". It's not a complicated legal definition of family, and it makes perfect sense as it applies to a legal concept of marriage.
"A legal binding contract between two consenting adults for the purposes of taxation, inheritance, etc."
That's more or less a definition of civil contract.
Marriage already is a civil contract.
So why the need for redefining marriage?
Because there are many individuals who are prevented from entering into it with their partners in a way that violates Equal Protections and Due Process.
2. Proponents of polygamy would argue that the definition violates their rights, from the equal protection clause perspective.
If one minority (gays) has been granted the priveledge of marriage, then why not grant it to another group of consenting adults?
First, there is no legal argument linking those two. Second, marriage as a contract is between two people. No part of the marriage contract could work with more than two people. Third, I see no problem creating provisions within the civil contract of marriage that allow more than 2 individuals to enter into it, so long as issues of inheritance, taxation etc are provided for in a way that does not create a more advantageous situation than a two party marriage.
If one minority (gays) has been granted the priveledge of marriage, then why not grant it to another group of consenting adults?
Again, that isn't a legal argument, that is the slippery slope logical fallacy. There is no compelling interest for the state to prevent two consenting adults to enter into a civil contract that already provides the framework for such. Comparing that to completely reworking the structure of the contract and all the benefits within is just silly.
"Family is defined as “one or more persons occupying a single dwelling unit, provided that unless all members are related by blood or marriage".
Have you noticed that your two definitions contain a circular reference?
Marriage is defined by family, and family refers to marriage.
Maybe the "family" should be removed from the marriage definition, after all?
Marriage already is a civil contract.
Oops. Sorry, I wrote the wrong word. I meant "civil union", not "civil contract".
So, that part of my post should have been:
"That's more or less a definition of civil union. So why the need for redefining marriage?"
Because there are many individuals who are prevented from entering into it with their partners in a way that violates Equal Protections and Due Process.
Were you referring to this:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.
It takes a huge leap to get to redefinition of marriage, from that clause.
The first question is: why would civil unions not suffice?
A civil union can offer the same privileges as a marriage does.
Second question: how does that clause differentiate between gay couples and gay polygamous groups? Why is a privilege granted to couples, but not larger groups of people which share a bonding relationship?
First, there is no legal argument linking those two.
Well, the legal argument is not linking these two forms of liaison. The legal argument here is based on total similarity of legal justification - both times the equal protection clause is (incorrectly) being used.
Second, marriage as a contract is between two people. No part of the marriage contract could work with more than two people.
Before that, marriage was a legal contract between a man and a woman. This is exactly the point of our debate - why not redefine it further along this direction?
Third, I see no problem creating provisions within the civil contract of marriage that allow more than 2 individuals to enter into it, so long as issues of inheritance, taxation etc are provided for in a way that does not create a more advantageous situation than a two party marriage.
So, you can theoretically consider legalization of polygamous marriage to be a possibility.
Now, let's consider this scenario: a married gay couple adopts a boy. That boy later turns out to be "gay". When he reaches consent age, the gay couple marries that boy in a polygamous incestuous marriage. Would that serve the equal protection clause?
Again, that isn't a legal argument, that is the slippery slope logical fallacy. There is no compelling interest for the state to prevent two consenting adults to enter into a civil contract that already provides the framework for such. Comparing that to completely reworking the structure of the contract and all the benefits within is just silly.
So, the reason to oppose it is overhead work by the state needed to implement the new contract structure? That's hardly an argument here, since the goal is supposed to be implementation of the equal protection clause.
"Family is defined as “one or more persons occupying a single dwelling unit, provided that unless all members are related by blood or marriage".
Have you noticed that your two definitions contain a circular reference?
Marriage is defined by family, and family refers to marriage.
Maybe the "family" should be removed from the marriage definition, after all?"
Marriage is one aspect of family, but yes, family and marriage are rather circular in their relationship in this country.
Marriage already is a civil contract.
Oops. Sorry, I wrote the wrong word. I meant "civil union", not "civil contract".
So, that part of my post should have been:
"That's more or less a definition of civil union. So why the need for redefining marriage?"
Marriage already is a civil union as well.
Because there are many individuals who are prevented from entering into it with their partners in a way that violates Equal Protections and Due Process.
Were you referring to this:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.
It takes a huge leap to get to redefinition of marriage, from that clause.
Not really, the Supreme Court already made the same type of jump in Loving v. Virginia.
The first question is: why would civil unions not suffice?
A civil union can offer the same privileges as a marriage does.
Separate but equal is inherently. An institution designed only for the purpose of distinction is itself discriminatory, and without a compelling interest for the state to create said distinction, it is in violation of Due Process.
Second question: how does that clause differentiate between gay couples and gay polygamous groups? Why is a privilege granted to couples, but not larger groups of people which share a bonding relationship?
As has already been explained to you, the contract itself is, by its very nature, two party. It is a contract between two people, the benefits involved are only structured around two people, etc. The past limitations on marriage (Same-Race, opposite sex) are not requirements to meet the structure of the marriage contract. Any two consenting adults could get married without running into any issues with the structure of said contract. But as I have already said, I am in support of changing the contract to allow for polygamous marriages, so long as the benefits are created in such a way that is not overly advantageous.
Well, the legal argument is not linking these two forms of liaison. The legal argument here is based on total similarity of legal justification - both times the equal protection clause is (incorrectly) being used.
The legal argument link I was referring to is the justification. Equal protections does apply to two consenting adults, while it does not apply to trying to fit more than 2 parties into a contract between two parties.
Before that, marriage was a legal contract between a man and a woman. This is exactly the point of our debate - why not redefine it further along this direction?
As I have already said, there is no legitimate, compelling interest for the state to prevent two consenting individuals from entering into a marriage.
So, you can theoretically consider legalization of polygamous marriage to be a possibility.
Yes, but for entirely different legal and political justifications.
Now, let's consider this scenario: a married gay couple adopts a boy. That boy later turns out to be "gay". When he reaches consent age, the gay couple marries that boy in a polygamous incestuous marriage. Would that serve the equal protection clause?
While that example is so far beyond that pale that I'd venture to say it most likely wouldn't happen more than half a dozen times (a baseless guess, of course), that would take more legal research from me to say.
So, the reason to oppose it is overhead work by the state needed to implement the new contract structure?
I never said it is a reason to oppose it, I actually stated my support. I said that the Equal Protections Clause does not apply because two consenting adults could enter into a marriage contract without any sort of changes to the very structure of the contract. Again, there is not a single compelling interest to prevent two consenting individuals from entering into an already existent contract. It does not make sense to try to claim that equal protections would apply to what would be a structural reworking (essentially an entirely different structure for the contract) for a polygamous group. Yet despite that, I am fully in support of doing said reworking for polygamous groups.
there is no inherent advantage in the eyes of the state for more than two ppl to form a marriage....
point of diminishing returns is a fair criteria for the state to use when drawing the line.
this is why i'm an advocate of limiting the child credit to the first two children only... after that additional children should become a tax liability.
That's more or less a definition of civil contract.
Except the government is basically a party to the marriage contract as it not only recognizes it, but provides benefits based on it.
So why the need for redefining marriage?
Is removing an exclusion on who can enter a contract a redefining of the contract itself?
Was allowing interracial marriage a redefining of marriage?
why not grant it to another group of consenting adults?
Yes, logistics is a valid state concern, but I think the government can and should overcome those hurdles for polygamy. (We already allow people to marry lots of people, just not at the same time.)
as far as the state is concerned marriage IS a civil contract.... that's the problem. DOMA and other such laws have tried to make access to that form of contract out or reach for certain ppl based only in their sexual orientation.
such policy does not pass constitutional muster.
the easiest solution, with the least amount of paperwork, is to simply remove the "gender" question from the marriage license application in every state.
Civil marriage law enables the state to extend certain financial benefits and legal conveniences (e.g. end of life care, child-rearing, etc.) which generate greater overall social stability. It ought to be entirely distinct from any religious conception and viewed exclusively as a governmental mechanism for securing social well-being.
Unless there are well documented, direct harms resulting from a relationship then it should qualify for inclusion within civil marriage law. Most current civil marriage law is overly restrictive in this respect, and thus fails to realize the full potential benefits of civil marriage law.
Unless there are well documented, direct harms resulting from a relationship then it should qualify for inclusion within civil marriage law
And here's the flaw.
It's impossible to have any valid research on how gay adoption affects the well being of adopted children, until gay marriage has been allowed and gay adoption is legal.
The only flaws in reasoning are yours. They are as follow:
(1) Same-sex marriage and same-sex parentage are two distinct issues, and the latter does not necessarily follow from the former just as it does not in opposite-sex relationships.
(2) Children have been and presently are being raised by same-sex couples. Adoption is not the only avenue to parentage available to same-sex couples, nor is marriage requisite to either adoption or alternative options (e.g. in vitro fertilization, children from prior relationships, etc.).
(3) Same-sex marriage is legal in multiple states within the U.S. now, and has been legal in other nations for considerably longer. There has been more than sufficient time for research to demonstrate any potential harms associated with same-sex marriage (including parentage), and that no such evidence has emerged underscores the invalidity of your unfounded objection.
(4) On a question of rights and equality before the law, the burden of proof falls upon the party attempting to restrict the Constitutionally secured rights of other citizens. Pointing to an absence of evidence for an unfounded fear is an entirely illegitimate basis from which to deny equally rights to any person on any matter.
Though this is incredibly boring, I will debate your obviously flawed points:
1. Same-sex marriage and same-sex parentage are two distinct issues, and the latter does not necessarily follow from the former just as it does not in opposite-sex relationships.
It "does not necessary follow" in an abstract world, where almost nothing is a consequence of anything else. In the real world, and specifically in the USA these two issues are closely interconnected. First of all, the "adoption" argument was in fact on of the main arguments put forth by proponents of gay marriage. Second, marriage should and does give gays the same rights (formally) as non-gays, and that includes the right to adopt.
2. Children have been and presently are being raised by same-sex couples. Adoption is not the only avenue to parentage available to same-sex couples, nor is marriage requisite to either adoption or alternative options (e.g. in vitro fertilization, children from prior relationships, etc.).
The main issue here is the correctness and validity of statistical research. There is no way to verify that these "same-sex couples" have indeed been together for any significant amount of time. The researcher can only take their word for it, and in that case he is breaking one of the main principles of sociological surveying. Since the "gay couples" have in this case a vested interest in a "gay friendly" result of the survey.
Therefore, the valid statistics on gay parentage can be gathered only after some sort of state-recognized "gay marriage" is legalized.
3. Same-sex marriage is legal in multiple states within the U.S. now, and has been legal in other nations for considerably longer. There has been more than sufficient time for research to demonstrate any potential harms associated with same-sex marriage (including parentage), and that no such evidence has emerged underscores the invalidity of your unfounded objection.
It would take at least 18 years of legalized gay adoption, for researchers to be able to gather valid statistical data on the effects of gay parentage.
4. On a question of rights and equality before the law, the burden of proof falls upon the party attempting to restrict the Constitutionally secured rights of other citizens. Pointing to an absence of evidence for an unfounded fear is an entirely illegitimate basis from which to deny equally rights to any person on any matter.
This is not a question of rights, but rather of raping the law. In C++, it's possible to overload any operator so it means something else. When that is done to legal terms, the very fabric of law is being torn.
Legalizing gay "marriage" is in no way similar to other historical events whereas equal rights were established for all citizens.
The voting process is clearly defined, and the definition does not involve either the gender or the ethnicity of participants. So, when blacks were allowed to vote, this was not redefinition of voting, but the establishment of equal rights for black people. Same situation with woman's rights.
On the contrary, in the case of marriage, the genders and the number of participants are central to the process. Since biologically, it takes a man and a woman to rear a child.
And psychologically, it's important that a child learns about both the male and female roles in society.
So, in the case of gay "marriage", the very term was redefined.
Legalizing gay "marriage" is in no way similar to other historical events whereas equal rights were established for all citizens.
The voting process is clearly defined, and the definition does not involve either the gender or the ethnicity of participants. So, when blacks were allowed to vote, this was not redefinition of voting, but the establishment of equal rights for black people. Same situation with woman's rights.
On the contrary, in the case of marriage, the genders and the number of participants are central to the process. Since biologically, it takes a man and a woman to rear a child.
And psychologically, it's important that a child learns about both the male and female roles in society.
So, in the case of gay "marriage", the very term was redefined.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Before Loving v. Virginia, ethnicity was an integral aspect of marriage, and the courts overruled that as well. In that sense, the very term was redefined as well.
The term marriage cannot have a different meaning depending on the state.
According to who? Marriage in this country has had different meanings depending on the state on many different occasions.
When Virginia adopted the crazy Racial Integrity Act in 1924, that did not suddenly make ethnicity an "integral" aspect of marriage.
Which is irrelevant. The societal definition of marriage held it to be homogenous: Interracial relationships were not acceptable, and were considered unnatural.
Consequently, when that law was abolished by the Supreme court, that did not redefine the term "marriage".
When one definition is held by a group, and the Supreme Court legally forces them to change it, they most certainly redefine it. Particularly when doing so goes against the socially accepted definition of the time in that area.
Certailny a bigoted question, because having a legal definition will mean that liberal LGBT activists will no longer be able to waddle in their lalaland of "equality". Which actually stands for something else - creating legal precedent.
The legal definition of a black person used to have them counted as 3/5 of a person. That changed. The legal definition of a voter used to be a white male. That changed. Having a legal definition doesn't mean that equality has been reached.
Having a legal definition doesn't mean that equality has been reached.
That's absolutely correct and totally irrelevant here.
Having a legal definition of marriage doesn't mean that equality has been reached. Whereas not having a legal definition of marriage means that campaigning for "marriage equality" is political demagogy, at best.
That's absolutely correct and totally irrelevant here.
Then why did you mention it? You claimed that the LGBT would no longer be able to cry for equality. Legal definitions don't prevent the gays from their "lalaland of 'equality'" just like it didn't for blacks and women.
Whereas not having a legal definition of marriage means that campaigning for "marriage equality" is political demagogy, at best.
Except you don't need a formal definition in order to set rules for government treatment. There is government supported definition of America and we were still able to figure out who gets to be married and who doesn't. One group says they want the rules to be changed to fit their lifestyle and you claim that they are a political demagogy, but the group that wants to define marriage so that the rules can't be changed isn't.
Then why did you mention it? You claimed that the LGBT would no longer be able to cry for equality.
Because, once there is a legal definition of marriage with gender removed form it, there will be no reason to redefine it further using the 14th amendment, to include other sexual minorities. The "reasonable benefit" argument is very weak and will be overruled by the courts. One can argue that there is an obvious reasonable benefit for the state, to allow a wealthy man to marry several women and raise children from all of them - whereas otherwise, some of these women could have been living in poverty, and their children would suffer (that's the argument in the Islamic world). So, polygamous marriages would be next.
LGBT doesn't want to be held responsible for opening this can of worms.
Such a turn of events could lead to a strong counter reaction, which could even lead to abolishing of "gay marriage".
And that's why the LGBT doesn't want a serious legal definition of marriage.
Except you don't need a formal definition in order to set rules for government treatment. There is government supported definition of America and we were still able to figure out who gets to be married and who doesn't.
Yep, today you can "figure" that out. Tomorrow, activists from some other sexual minority and their lawyers, will figure it out differently. That's the consequence of leaving important issues solely to "judge's discretion".
The situation with blacks was very different.
For example, the voting process is clearly defined, and that definition does not mention any specifics regarding the participants, except that they should be citizens and of legal age. Sex and ethnicity are irrelevant to the process.
In marriage, the sex and number of participants are central to the process. Because biologically, it takes a man and a woman to rear a child.
And psychologically, it's important that a child learns about both the male and female roles in society.
Because, once there is a legal definition of marriage with gender removed form it, there will be no reason to redefine it further using the 14th amendment, to include other sexual minorities.
If the government defines marriage to include gays, then of course the gays won't have anything to complain about. I assumed you meant a definition that didn't include gays. Why would we debate about a legal definition of marriage including gays going against the gay agenda? That makes no sense.
. The "reasonable benefit" argument is very weak and will be overruled by the courts
As has been seen by all of the overruled court decisions so far.
One can argue that there is an obvious reasonable benefit for the state, to allow a wealthy man to marry several women and raise children from all of them - whereas otherwise, some of these women could have been living in poverty, and their children would suffer (that's the argument in the Islamic world). So, polygamous marriages would be next.
Multiple wives will probably also be legalized. That shouldn't affect gays.
LGBT doesn't want to be held responsible for opening this can of worms.
Such a turn of events could lead to a strong counter reaction, which could even lead to abolishing of "gay marriage".
Right, because people hate gays for rational reasons. Get real.
And psychologically, it's important that a child learns about both the male and female roles in society.
There are many different ways to learn that. Wouldn't 2 mothers be better than no patents at all?
Certailny a bigoted question, because having a legal definition will mean that liberal LGBT activists will no longer be able to waddle in their lalaland of "equality".
Personally, I think marriage is an archaic practice. It was started to secure a males line of secession and to enslave a women and we see how well that has worked out. Now, it is used to give unfair tax advantages to married people and social acceptance. I think if people are going to procreate together they should have to sign a binding agreement to raise the child or children together. Otherwise, it's a bunch of crap. If the religious want to make it a religious event then do so, but don't try to force the rest of us to follow your beliefs. Feelings is what keeps a couple together and makes a home, not a piece of paper.
I think if people are going to procreate together they should have to sign a binding agreement to raise the child or children together.
that's what marriage is.
and why limit it to only couples who will pro-create... why not provide it for couples who want to adopt... or couples who just want to live together as a unit because they love each other?
there are societal advantages for encouraging this kind of thing (up to a point).
there are no societal advantages to marriage when:
who is man to change the rules?the only reason change is wanted is so others will accept their lifestyle and they wont feel bad about the life they are living.people are free to choose their own life style but when they want to be made equal to something its not that is the injustice of the whole argument
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." Aristotle
since we made up the rules in the first place, then i would say we (huMANs) are the best ones to "change" them.
change is a funny word for it too... the definition of marriage has evolved over time along with our species... only the knuckle draggers have been the ones trying to hold it back.
What? We are referring to the "legal" definition of marriage, something that man created. Since man created it, man is justified in changing it.
?the only reason change is wanted is so others will accept their lifestyle and they wont feel bad about the life they are living.
No. In fact, it has nothing to do with getting others to "accept" a "lifestyle" (sexual orientation isn't a lifestyle). Changing the legal definition will have no impact on acceptance of homosexuality. It is about the Constitutional rights of Due Process and Equal Protections applying to the civil right (Loving v. Virginia, + dozens of other cases) of marriage.
people are free to choose their own life style but when they want to be made equal to something its not that is the injustice of the whole argument
Except if it was made equal, it would be equal. This is a legal topic, and thus legal equality is the only relevant form of equality.
so Gods rules matter not cause of mans rules?is that your point?everything else is pointless if you think that!people are free to choose not free from the consequences of their choice!
24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
The Bible says a lot of self evident things. The fact is that, as I have said, the Bible holds no legal authority in this country, and thus is irrelevant to the issue at hand: the legal contract of marriage.
Changing the legal definition will have no impact on acceptance of homosexuality.
You are either deliberately lying, or completely ignorant of the facts.
Changing the legal definition of marriage, by allowing gay marriage, does have an impact on acceptance of homosexuality. And is already has affected it.
That was the main purpose of injecting the whole "gay marriage" idea.
The logic is stupid, but simple and effective.
Since now gays are officially married and
Matt and Steve are just as much "married" as the normal couple
then they are just as normal
and so, schoolkids should now be "educated" on this subject
to remove any chance of "ignorance" and "bigotry".
And from here, we move to the deeper levels of propaganda.
Inventing "gay teens"
making "safe zones" for them
and in fact encouraging homosexual experimentation among young children.
I've described just one of the many propaganda methods which are based on the "gay marriage" precedent.
THAT was the real of the "gay marriage" agenda.
Only about 2% of gays have gotten married, in the states where it has been allowed.
So, it's really not about marriage.
It's about indoctrination and raising as many "chickens" as possible for future consumption.
(BTW, gay slang has more than 200 terms for preteen boys, all of which have sexual connotation).
Changing the legal definition of marriage, by allowing gay marriage, does have an impact on acceptance of homosexuality. And is already has affected it.
And yet you have provided no statistics on approval ratings to back that up.
That was the main purpose of injecting the whole "gay marriage" idea.
No, it wasn't. The whole purpose was people wanting their rights, and demanding them. It is arrogant to assume it was about people like you accepting them.
Since now gays are officially married and Matt and Steve are just as much "married" as the normal couple then they are just as normal and so, schoolkids should now be "educated" on this subject to remove any chance of "ignorance" and "bigotry".
Statistically they are not normal, but the point is who the fk cares?
Inventing "gay teens"
As they can tell you, they have existed for a long time.
making "safe zones" for them
Examples?
and in fact encouraging homosexual experimentation among young children.
Citation seriously needed.
I've described just one of the many propaganda methods which are based on the "gay marriage" precedent.
You've made claims without evidence, sure.
Only about 2% of gays have gotten married, in the states where it has been allowed.
The figures are actually two to three times that, which still isn't much. But how is that surprising, when you have a sub-culture that has gone for so long without marriage, expecting them to suddenly get hitched is unrealistic. That doesn't change that it was always about their rights.
It's about indoctrination and raising as many "chickens" as possible for future consumption.
Seeing as how one can not be "raised" homosexual, that argument is just preposterous.
(BTW, gay slang has more than 200 terms for preteen boys, all of which have sexual connotation).
Man already has changed the rules. Marriage used to be between a man and a women of the same race. Or the same social class. Or the same religion. Do you oppose interracial marriage? By this argument, you should.
Ok, so if you support everything that the bible says about marriage:
You think marriage should not be allowed between a man and a woman who does not submit to her husband as if he was the Lord. (Ephesians 5:22-33)
You think marriage should not be allowed between a man and a women if either have had sex before marriage. Or if either have committed adultery. (Hebrews 13:4 and others)
You think women should not be allowed to be divorced from their husbands (and that divorced women should not be allowed to remarry) unless their husbands are dead. (1 Corinthians 7:39 and plenty of other verses)
You think marriage should be banned for those men who do not love their wives. (Ephesians 5:25)
And so on.
And yet, you seem to only be preaching the anti-gay part of it. If you want to support what the bible says, maybe you should expand your message.
Interesting way to word this side of the debate. Either way, all states have a legal definition of marriage, and the overwhelming majority state that marriage is between a man and a woman. Now federal courts do not have the power to over rule what the people and state governments have enacted, unless of course it is unconstitutional. For the issue of marriage, being that this is not a federal issue, ergo it is a power left to the people and the states, the federal courts cannot interfere with state issues.
Now federal courts do not have the power to over rule what the people and state governments have enacted, unless of course it is unconstitutional. For the issue of marriage, being that this is not a federal issue, ergo it is a power left to the people and the states, the federal courts cannot interfere with state issues.
Loving v. Virginia established that marriage was a civil right, which makes it a federal issue, and therefore the courts are justified in pointing out that the states you are referring to are in violation of the 14th Amendment.
Federal courts do not have the power to overrule what the people and state governments have enacted. In face the federal court cannot make any rule or legislation.
Federal courts do not have the power to overrule what the people and state governments have enacted.
Actually, they do. The courts are the arbiters of Constitutionality, as per the balance of powers in this country. If the people or the state/federal governments do something unconstitutional, the courts are not only allowed to rule against it, they are compelled to do so.
In face the federal court cannot make any rule or legislation.
Ruling something is unconstitutional is not making a rule or legislation.
In this country, the Supreme Court is. How can you, on one hand, decry that is the fact, and on the other claim it isn't the case. Your arguments are internally inconsistent.
In 1804, Jefferson wrote: “The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."
His own view was that: "Nothing in the Constitution has given [the judges] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. Both magistrates are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them."
Later, in retirement in1819, he wrote that: “[T]he Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.
“If this opinion [he wrote in the same 1819 letter] be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation.”
Well, it’s only Jefferson, but he’s entitled to his opinion.
He is indeed entitled to his opinion, but it has no legal relevance, for better or worse. Our system is what it is, despite regrets Jefferson (or any other founders) might have had regarding how they set everything up.
n his first inaugural address (1861), referring to the constitutional questions that were then tearing the republic asunder, Lincoln said:
I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court. Nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government [by which Lincoln means the executive and legislative branches]…
At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.
The history of judicial review is full of awkward surprises, and dissenting testimony from some of the most beloved figures of U.S. history, but I would say the controversy has mostly disappeared.
Most Americans accept that the Supreme Court has the “supreme” final word on the meaning of the Constitution. But We the People are getting kind of cranky about it.
Then "we the people" will need to try to change our entire system of government. If enough people want that, then it can happen. Otherwise, it is somewhat irrelevant.
All we have to do is follow the Constitution, but of course those on the left hate the Constitution because it is based on Christian principles of individual liberty and freedom
In other words, you believe that whatever was believed a couple hundred years ago is correct, regardless of changes in society and mustn't be deviated from?
The Constitution originally allowed for slavery and kept rights away from women. Are you in favor of these activities?
As Thomas Jefferson noted in an 1804 letter to Abigail Adams:
You seem to think it devolved on the judges to decide on the validity of the Sedition law. But nothing in the Constitution has given them a right to decide for the Executive, more than the Executive to decide for them. Both magistrates are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them. The judges, believing the law constitutional, had a right to pass a sentence of fine and imprisonment; because the power was placed in their hands by the Constitution. But the Executive, believing the law to be unconstitutional, were bound to remit the execution of it: because that power has been confided to them by the Constitution. That instrument [the Constitution] meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch. 1
Indeed, Mr. Jefferson. And that is exactly what has happened.
So, according to the Founding Fathers, there was no final or supreme arbiter of the Constitution. Each branch of the civil government had the responsibility of determining the constitutionality of its action within its own sphere. The President was the final arbiter of the constitutionality of enforcement. The Supreme Court was final arbiter of the constitutionality of its judicial decisions. And Congress was the final arbiter of the constitutionality of its laws. And the states could challenge the constitutionality of any of the general branches. This was necessary to check despotic power.
Perhaps Ben Carson didn’t word his statement very precisely, but the effect of what he is saying is constitutionally and historically sound.
We can see that judicial supremacy, in direct contradiction to the original intent of the Constitution, has become so accepted as to be a commonplace. It’s apparently taught in Civics 101. In spite of the fact that it is completely unconstitutional. And teaching it as fact is an Orwellian distortion of history.
Judicial supremacy isn’t just unconstitutional. It’s also destructive to this nation. The Supreme Court acts like it can decide for every other branch, and all the states, what should or should not and what can or can not be done. This has created innumerable injustices in local governance. And it needs to stop.
So, according to the Founding Fathers, there was no final or supreme arbiter of the Constitution.
No, according to one founding father that is the case.
Each branch of the civil government had the responsibility of determining the constitutionality of its action within its own sphere. The President was the final arbiter of the constitutionality of enforcement.
What a wonderful recipe for executive abuse. The idea of Bush or Obama being the ones to determine which of their actions are or are not constitutional is downright horrifying.
The Supreme Court was final arbiter of the constitutionality of its judicial decisions.
Considering how the Supreme Court only rules on matters of Constitutionality, that is hilariously redundant.
And Congress was the final arbiter of the constitutionality of its laws.
Yet again, ripe for abuse. That would mean that Congress could go ahead and disarm the United States populace, 2nd Amendment be damned, so long as they declared it constitutional. A very scary thought.
Judicial supremacy isn’t just unconstitutional. It’s also destructive to this nation. The Supreme Court acts like it can decide for every other branch, and all the states, what should or should not and what can or can not be done. This has created innumerable injustices in local governance. And it needs to stop.
Declaring it unconstitutional does not make it so. The only argument you have provided are the private correspondence of one singular Founding Father, one whom ran into many disagreements with other founders.
You really show why liberals are such ignorant people
It is evident you do not understand what you are reading, maybe the words are to big for you
Judicial supremacy isn’t just unconstitutional. It’s also destructive to this nation. The Supreme Court acts like it can decide for every other branch, and all the states, what should or should not and what can or can not be done. This has created innumerable injustices in local governance. And it needs to stop.
You really show why liberals are such ignorant people
Coming from the guy who has been told time and time again that the person he is talking to is not liberal. Ironic.
It is evident you do not understand what you are reading, maybe the words are to big for you
I do understand what I am reading, actually. Now stop acting so petulant and try to have a legitimate conversation, please.
Judicial supremacy isn’t just unconstitutional.
No, it isn't. It isn't in the constitution, but it doesn't go against the constitution. If anything, it is extra-constitutional .
It’s also destructive to this nation.
I disagree. If it weren't for the Supreme Court, states would still be allowed to outlaw personal behavior such as homosexuality, my wife and I would not be legally allowed to get married in many states (thanks, Loving v. Virginia), etc.
The Supreme Court acts like it can decide for every other branch, and all the states, what should or should not and what can or can not be done.
Nope. It just decides if something someone has done is Unconstitutional.
This has created innumerable injustices in local governance. And it needs to stop.
The Supreme Court of the United States spends much, if not most, of its time on a task which is not delegated to the Supreme Court by the Constitution. That task is: Hearing cases wherein the constitutionality of a law or regulation is challenged. The Supreme Court's nine Justices attempt to sort out what is, and what is not constitutional. This process is known as Judicial Review. But the states, in drafting the Constitution, did not delegate such a power to the Supreme Court, or to any branch of the government.
Since the constitution does not give this power to the court, you might wonder how it came to be that the court assumed this responsibility. The answer is that the court just started doing it and no one has put a stop to it. This assumption of power took place first in 1794 when the Supreme Court declared an act of congress to be unconstitutional, but went largely unnoticed until the landmark case of Marbury v Madison in 1803. Marbury is significant less for the issue that it settled (between Marbury and Madison) than for the fact that Chief Justice John Marshall used Marbury to provide a rationale for judicial review. Since then, the idea that the Supreme Court should be the arbiter of constitutionality issues has become so ingrained that most people incorrectly believe that the Constitution granted this power to the federal judiciary.
Powers of the Supreme Court
Article III of the Constitution provides for the establishment of a Judicial branch of the federal government and Section 2 of that article enumerates the powers of the Supreme Court. Here is Section 2, in part:
Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;
to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;
to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;
to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;
to Controversies between two or more States;
between a State and Citizens of another State;
between Citizens of different States;
between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Feel free to examine the entire text of Article III to assure yourself that no power of Judicial Review is granted by the Constitution.
"Well," you might say, "someone has to review laws for constitutionality. Why not the Supreme Court?" Some possible answers:
First and foremost, it is not a power granted to the Supreme Court by the Constitution. When the Supreme Court exercises Judicial Review, it is acting unconstitutionally.
It is a huge conflict of interest. The Federal Government is judging the constitutionality of its own laws. It is a classic case of "the fox guarding the hen house."
The Constitution's "checks and balances" were designed to prevent any one branch of government (legislative, executive or judicial) from becoming too powerful and running roughshod over the other branches. There is no such system of checks and balances to protect the states and the people when multiple branches of government, acting in concert, erode and destroy the rights and powers of the states and the people.
Even if the Supreme Court could be counted on to keep the Executive and Legislative branches from violating the Constitution, who is watching the Supreme Court and will prevent the Judicial branch from acting unconstitutionally? Unless you believe that the Supreme Court is infallible (and, demonstrably, it is not), then allowing the Supreme Court to be the sole arbiter of Constitutionality issues is obviously flawed.
Justices are appointed, not elected and may only be removed for bad behavior (which has happened in the distant past but these days, appointment to the Supreme Court is like a lifetime appointment). If the court upholds unconstitutional laws, there is no recourse available. We the People cannot simply vote them out to correct the situation. Thomas Jefferson wrote, in 1823:
"At the establishment of our constitution, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account."
It is the Constitution, not the Supreme Court, which is the Supreme Law of the Land. Even the Supreme Court should be accountable for overstepping Constitutional limits on federal power.
Judicial review turns the Constitution on its head. The Judiciary was created as the weakest branch, controlled by both the Legislative and Executive branches. Judicial review makes the Judiciary master of both the Legislature and Ececutive, telling them both what that may and may not do.
There are only nine Justices and, under the current system, it takes only a simple majority — five votes — to determine a case. Given the supermajority requirement mandated by the Constitution to pass Constitutional amendments, a simple majority requirement by the Supreme Court, to uphold a suspect law, defies the spirit of the Constitution. If 44.44% of the Supreme Court justices (four of nine) think a law is not constitutional, we should err on the side of caution and declare it unconstitutional.
The people and the states have little control over the makeup of the Supreme Court.
Officials in all three branches of government take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution. The Supreme Court Justices, Senators, Congressmen, and Vice President, and other federal officers, all take an oath of office to "support and defend" the Constitution. (The president's oath of office in Article II, Section 1, requires that he "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.") Why is the Supreme Court's version of "constitutional" considered more authoritative? Is the Judicial branch more to be trusted than the Executive or Legislative branches? Prudence dictates that we be wary of all three branches (and especially wary of the one unaccountable branch).
Given that it was the people and the states which established the Constitution, it is the states who should settle issues of constitutionality. The Constitution is a set of rules made by the states as to how the government should act. The "judicial review" paradigm allows the government to make its own rules with no say by the original rule-makers — the states.
The Constitution was created by the states and any question as to the meaning of the Constitution is rightly settled by the states. When you make rules for your children, do you permit your children to interpret your rules in any manner they like? Of course not. Yet, the states are permitting the federal government — the "child" of the states — to do exactly that.
Since the power of Judicial Review is not expressly granted to the Supreme Court by the Constitution, this power, per the tenth amendment, is "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Read that last listed reason above again, for it contains the key to this site's being. The Constitution is very clear; any power to review laws to see if they are constitutional belongs to the states and to the people. Therefore, the Supreme Court is itself acting unconstitutionally when it exercises the power of 'Judicial Review.' It would require a Constitutional Amendment specifically granting this power to the court in order for 'Judicial Review' to be constitutional!
And just how should the determination of "constitutionality" be handled? For that answer, it helps to understand how the Constitution is (supposed to be) amended.