The Instigator
Miserlou
Pro (for)
Winning
30 Points
The Contender
monetary_sniper
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points

Banning Gay Marriage is Unconstitutional

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/1/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,607 times Debate No: 1247
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (13)

 

Miserlou

Pro

First, let me clear up a few definitions. I'm using "Gay marriage" as an umbrella term for all rights pertaining to homosexuals, such as civil unions, and the abolition of discriminatory laws.

The argument is, regardless of whether you believe in gay marriage, it would be unconstitutional for the United States to ban it. Almost all of the arguments against gay marriage are religious; people claim that it is immoral and against the Bible. But the Constitution forbids passing laws that favor a certain religion, and if all of the evidence against gay marriage is religious, it would be illegal for them to ban it since people not necessarily of those beliefs would be effected.

My challenge to you is whether you can show me evidence against gay marriage that isn't strictly religious, or possibly refute my claim entirely.
monetary_sniper

Con

Very well Miserlou, I am up to the challenge. I see where you are coming from in that many a person uses theological claims as factual supports for a certain position regarding gay marriage. First, however, I find it imperative to set up the question so we can all further our understanding. We, I assume, are debating marriage in its legal form: it wold be frivolous to argue banning gay marriage in the religious paradigm. Why is it frivolous? Because when people talk of banning gay marriage it means that as a [gay] couple you would not be legally recognized as married entity under the law despite what the churches say. In the United States, after you have your religious marriage ceremony, generally you would obtain a marriage certificate. Churches can LEGALLY marry a gay couple today, just remember that it would be pointless since they would not be married under the law (which is of course what matters). Thus, if you wish to argue the constitutionality, or rather, the legality (so as to not limit our discussion to one specific document) of gay marriage, it is imperative we do so in a secular, legal paradigm.

It is an impalpable idea that a government such as the one we are discussing (the United States of course) should not be allowed to enact SECULAR legislation governing the civil unity of its citizens. There is no single place in the Constitution (including any assorted amendments you wish to toss in) that says that the institution of marriage cannot be restricted to only monogamous heterosexual couples. Neither is it true that there is legal precedent (in the United States of course) to indicate that such would be illegal. So alas, I challenge YOU to prove that the banning of gay marriage is illegal.
Debate Round No. 1
Miserlou

Pro

My argument is not that it's technically impossible for them to pass a gay marriage ban, only that a close examination and -given the current arguments- a law against gay marriage is unconstitutional. The reasoning behind a law is crucial, obviously that determines if a law should or should not be passed. The Scopes Monkey Trial, and the later case of Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) were both concerned about the teaching of evolution in schools. The theory of evolution had been banned because of religious reasons by local authorities. But the Supreme Court, in the Epperson v. Arkansas, overturned those laws, saying they violated the separation of church and state. Bans on teaching evolution were made solely because they contradicted with the church, and it is unconstitutional to make a law based only on that.

The constitution doesn't say anything about restricting marriage, but if the only reason it is being banned is because the church says so than it doesn't pass. There needs to be secular evidence against gay marriage otherwise a ban is a violation of separation of church and state.
monetary_sniper

Con

monetary_sniper forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Miserlou

Pro

Alright, I'll say what I said again. Banning gay marriage is unconstitutional unless secular evidence against it is provided. For a little extra clarification, evolution and gay rights don't have anything to do with each other except that both have been contended on religious grounds and nothing else.

Monetary sniper I hope to see you again
monetary_sniper

Con

The Government will never be able to ban the religious ceremony called "marriage" for homosexual couples. What they can do is ban legal marriage, such that homosexual couples will not be married under the law. This is not religious in any way (how do you think atheists marry?) and thus is perfectly protected under the constitution. Several laws already refer to marriage under the law as the legal recognition that a man and a woman are married: thus making laws that reinforce these words is perfectly legal. Providing that the ban you speak of is in regards to the legal aspect of marriage and not the ceremonies themselves then it is perfectly permissible under the constitution that the government ban gay marriage.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Miserlou 9 years ago
Miserlou
Haha, I do that sometimes too.
Posted by mindjob 9 years ago
mindjob
Without a constitutional amendment, the federal government cannot ban gay marriage since such licenses and certificates are left up to the states under article 4, section 1, as well as the 10th amendment. Now, the question is whether the states can ban it, given the 14th amendment grants equal protection under the law. Also, the court case mentioned above limits the government's ability to pass laws solely for religious reasons.
Posted by monetary_sniper 9 years ago
monetary_sniper
lol! i posted my argument as a comment. Well... sorry I missed that round: I'll be looking forward to debating you again sometime.
Posted by monetary_sniper 9 years ago
monetary_sniper
The Government will never be able to ban the religious ceremony called "marriage" for homosexual couples. What they can do is ban legal marriage, such that homosexual couples will not be married under the law. This is not religious in any way (how do you think atheists marry?) and thus is perfectly protected under the constitution. Several laws already refer to marriage under the law as the legal recognition that a man and a woman are married: thus making laws that reinforce these words is perfectly legal. Providing that the ban you speak of is in regards to the legal aspect of marriage and not the ceremonies themselves then it is perfectly permissible under the constitution that the government ban gay marriage.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Chob 9 years ago
Chob
Miserloumonetary_sniperTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Pricetag 9 years ago
Pricetag
Miserloumonetary_sniperTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by debater123 9 years ago
debater123
Miserloumonetary_sniperTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by gabriel04 9 years ago
gabriel04
Miserloumonetary_sniperTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Miserlou 9 years ago
Miserlou
Miserloumonetary_sniperTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by thisearthlyride 9 years ago
thisearthlyride
Miserloumonetary_sniperTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by SocialistRI82 9 years ago
SocialistRI82
Miserloumonetary_sniperTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by jamie_l_2oo6 9 years ago
jamie_l_2oo6
Miserloumonetary_sniperTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by jvoeks 9 years ago
jvoeks
Miserloumonetary_sniperTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Cindela 9 years ago
Cindela
Miserloumonetary_sniperTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30