CreateDebate


Debate Info

23
13
Yes No
Debate Score:36
Arguments:32
Total Votes:36
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (20)
 
 No (12)

Debate Creator

Jc41218(1558) pic



Should States Decide Gay Marriage For Themselves?

 

 

Gay Marrisage Support is rising in the United States of America and other countries around the world. In 1996 The United States of America passed DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) which Section 3 of Defense of Marriage Act reads In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'Marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act was found unconsitutional by Supeme Court of the United States (United States V. Windsor) in a 5-4 Decision it was found to unconstitutional under the 5th Amendment Due Process Clause which says [N]or shall any state deprive any person person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law....

LGBT Activists cheered the ruling by SCOTUS.

 

While Religious Groups and Most GOP members are in uproar over the ruling by SCOTUS.

 

Meanwhile people are wondering if this should be a state issue or a national issue in the face of DOMA and other laws that De Facto (In Fact) or De Jure (In Law) ban or attempts to make gay marriage legal across this country.

Politicans are coming out in support for Gay Marriage such as President of the United States Barack Obama

 

and Hillary Clinton and other liberals have wanted the government to legalize gay marriage.

 

While Ron Paul and other Libertarians have said that the government should get out of marriage.

 

 

While Social Conservatives want to have Marriage as 1 Man and 1 Woman. Rick Santorum and others think this.

Yes

Side Score: 23
VS.

No

Side Score: 13
1 point

It's a state issue, therefore it should be taken care of by the states, not the Federals.

Side: Yes
1 point

It's true, but the state supreme courts are determining that denying these rights is unconstitutional. So, there is no point in leaving it up to the state because the only constitutional thing to do is legalize it.

Side: Yes
Jc41218(1558) Disputed
1 point

It's true, but the state supreme courts are determining that denying these rights is unconstitutional. So, there is no point in leaving it up to the state because the only constitutional thing to do is legalize it.

This has nothing to do if it is unconstitutional or not this is about do you think the United States of America's States should decide Gay Marriage for themselves?

Side: No
Warjin(1577) Disputed
1 point

Wrong it's a civil liberty issue and when it comes to that it falls under the founding principles of what the United states stands for, however I would agree if it was something like property tax, or even setting the states speed limit but not when it comes to any persons right to live free equally under the law.

Side: No
1 point

Yeah.

There should be more things that states can decide for themselves. This would allow people to move to the state that has the laws that most closely reflect their personal beliefs. This would be better for everyone.

Side: Yes
timber113(796) Disputed
1 point

That would probably cause strong variants in culture and eventually division in the country. I don't know how much of a good idea that is.

Side: Yes
sauh(1106) Disputed
1 point

So then you would argue for one national culture and belief system? How would we come to such an agreement?

Side: No
1 point

One of the cool things about having different states is that you have fifty different sets of rules to choose from. Not... entirely different rules, but you can move to places with more like-minded individuals and it's not a big deal.

Side: Yes

The five to four decision was not decisive enough and the supreme court doesn't seem to care about the constitution. The answer should be both because the federal government should be able to have their qualifications and the States should have their own standards too if they want to.

Side: Yes
1 point

Federal laws like these attack many religious beliefs of the states population and trounces the right of the state. Let the states decide if they want it or not. People shouldn't force the states into something they don't want.

Side: Yes
Jc41218(1558) Disputed
1 point

Federal laws like these attack many religious beliefs of the states population and trounces the right of the state. Let the states decide if they want it or not. People shouldn't force the states into something they don't want.

If you are talking about DOMA it would not recognize Gay Marriages approved by the states. How does it repeal hurt the rights of the states?

Side: Yes
Scout143(652) Disputed
2 points

Maybe so, but all the people would expect the states to comply with the Federal government's decision when they don't need to. They would use this as a weapon.

Side: Yes
1 point

I'd rather 'big government' not stick it's paws into this issue more than it has already done so. The resulting pressure of other states would inevitably lead to a universal adoption, except perhaps the most right-wing of states and even then they'd be hard pressed.

Side: Yes

Does the constitution give the federal government any authority on marriage? No? Then its a states issue.

Side: Yes
1 point

Defiantly because it is not a national problem it's a state problem therefore the state should be aloud to deal with it themselves instead of the federals coming in and doing that.

Side: Yes
1 point

Let's just get it over with, and just make it federal. The states had a good run of it for a while, but we can stop being ridiculous as a country and just make it legal. Especially since it seems to be unconstitutional to deny anyway, look at California.

Side: No

You really love your gay rights, don't you? Your gay husband must be proud to call you his bitch.

Side: No
2 points

My gay husband can beat-up your gay husband.

Side: No
1 point

No. The states do not have the right to violate people's rights. .

Side: No
Scout143(652) Disputed
3 points

Please tell that to New York, Illinois, Connecticut, and California! They don't allow their citizens to own firearms.

Side: Yes

"Its only a right if the government says it is man!"

Side: Yes
1 point

No not when it comes to civil rights, If a state wants to suppress a persons freedom then that state should not be part of the United State of America, people seem to forget that the USA means just that "united" under one roof for the sake of freedom, if any individual state goes against freedom in anyway then that state is not USA worthy.

If any one state takes the civil liberties of any one group of people ,religious or not, that state should be kicked to the curb, why you might ask well because if a state takes any freedom whats to stop that state from going further, in the end this will bite everyone in there ass if left unchecked.

Side: No
1 point

Too many videos.

Side: No

There are bigoted voters who want to take the rights away from a minority (Gays).

Side: No