The Instigator
piede
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
xXCryptoXx
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

Gay Marriage Should Be Federally Legalized

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
xXCryptoXx
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/4/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 942 times Debate No: 35286
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

piede

Pro

Gay marriage should be federally legalized for several reasons;
  • It's a constitutional right in regards to the fifth amendment of The United States Constituition (1) which states:

    "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

  • Leaving jurisdiction to the states results in national inconsistency with the law and deprives people of their constitutional right, the recent supreme court ruling in The United States v. Windsor leaves grounds for states to be sued if they exclude a couple from receiving benefits.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA); Section 3 was deemed unconstitutional by the supreme court which stated:

"DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment."
(2)

Section 3 of DOMA allowed only heterosexual marriages to be recognized and to receive the benefits that marriage receives from the federal government. (3)

If someone is married in a state who has legalized gay marriage such as Washington, and then moves to a state such as Utah, and they are denied rights in accordance with Utah law that leaves ground to sue the state and creates a contradiction in the law, in regards to a constitutional and civil right, gay marriage should be protected by federal law.

As a result gay marriage should be legalized federally, for all 50 states, and jurisdiction of an issue that intervenes with constitutional rights and creates an inconsistency with the law should not be left to the jurisdiction of the states.

Sources:

(1)
http://www.archives.gov...

(2) http://www.supremecourt.gov...

(3) http://en.wikipedia.org...

xXCryptoXx

Con

Thank you for initiating this debate, I gladly accept.


Now then, my opponent argues that the 5th Amendment gives gay couples the constitutional right into the institution of marriage from the line nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”; specifically from the point on liberty."


Let us analyze the meaning of “due process of law” first.


“The constitutional guarantee of due process of law, found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, prohibits all levels of government from arbitrarily or unfairly depriving individuals of their basic constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property.”(1)


Now, this begs the question of whether or not the restriction of allowing gay couples to be married is unfair or not.


Let’s analyze the use of the word liberty in the 5th amendment.


Now obviously this cannot mean literal liberty, for that would really be unrestricted freedom.


What” liberty” means is freedom in accordance with the current law, that no one will be deprived by what our country has set up. In other words, no one will be unfairly deprived of a liberty given to all other people.


Again though, this begs the question: Is it unfair to deprive gay couples to be allowed to marry?


Now that we have analyzed these things we can come to the conclusion that if there is proper reasoning to not allow gay couples (or really any relationship is excluded from marriage) to be allowed into the institution of marriage, then they are not protected by the 5th amendment, for there was proper reasoning for denying them a certain liberty.


In other words, the Supreme Court could easily have unjustly and wrongly decided to deem DOMA as unconstitutional and I will explain why.


I will now explain that there is proper reasoning for excluding gay couples from marriage, and that under these arguments gay couples are not protected by the 5th amendment for they are not unjustly deprived from marriage.


Marriage is government regulated because the government recognizes that there are external benefits marriage can bring to the society when marriage is defined in a proper way.


Let’s first look at why the government has regulated marriage between man and woman for so long.


The government regulates heterosexual marriages because the government is interested in the relationship heterosexuals pursue. The government recognizes these relationships because they have a direct link to children to be raised and loved by their mother and father.


It is a given fact that only a society that produces children and raises them properly survives.


Heterosexual couples directly fulfill these criteria for the survival of the society and the government wants to promote this.


The government recognizes that heterosexual couples simply have a natural link to a good family unit.


The government promotes these family units by dispensing benefits not only to heterosexual couples who are already married as a “thank you”, but also to get other heterosexual couples to marry.


The government has absolutely no interest in the private relationships of people; they only have interest in the direct benefits these relationships can naturally bring.


Allowing gay marriage directly turns marriage into something that is less about the children’s needs and the society’s needs, and more about the private relationship of two people.


The government has no incentive to recognize private relationships at all, so allowing gay marriage takes away the government’s reason to regulate marriage at all.


If gay marriage is to be legalized at all, it should be under a total privatization of marriage where the institution itself decides who gets married, and leaves the government out of it.


However, for as long as the government regulates marriage they should take advantage of the benefits marriage can bring to the society, and make it the government’s duty to define marriage in a way that best benefits the society.


My opponent states, “the recent supreme court ruling in The United States v. Windsor leaves grounds for states to be sued if they exclude a couple from receiving benefits.”


This is only for couples who are allowed into the institution of marriage. For if it wasn’t, then absolutely any relationship that is not included in marriage could sue on ground that they are not receiving benefits. Obviously this applies only to couples who can receive marital benefits, but are unjustly excluded from receiving them.


My opponent also states, “If someone is married in a state who has legalized gay marriage such as Washington, and then moves to a state such as Utah, and they are denied rights in accordance with Utah law that leaves ground to sue the state and creates a contradiction in the law, in regards to a constitutional and civil right, gay marriage should be protected by federal law.”


I argue that the government should either not allow gay marriage across all 50 states in order to keep controversy among each state down and promote a family unit in marriage, or that marriage should be totally privatized all-together for the allowance of gay marriage.



Under these arguments there will be no such contradiction to the law, for I am arguing that gay marriage should not be legalized anywhere at all for as long as marriage is government regulated.



Thank you, I await my opponent’s response.

(1) http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

Debate Round No. 1
piede

Pro

Thank you for your response.

While it is correct that the 5th amendment does not guarantee total freedom for anyone to do whatever they want, it does protect equal liberties as ruled by the supreme court in The United States v. Windsor. Meaning you cannot provide one set of marriages benefits and then deny another set of marriages those same benefits, nor can they be discriminated against or treated as a second tier marriage under the law:

"The power the Constitution grants it also restrains. And though Congress has great authority to design laws to fit its own conception of sound national policy, it cannot deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment." (1)

The Supreme Court also define the "Due Process Clause" of the fifth amendment in a more broad manner. (2)

In response to your claim that "It is a given fact that only a society that produces children and raises them properly survives." I would like to blatantly point out that, that is not true at all. That can be derived from both common sense and psychological studies.

Let's start with the aspect of common sense- there are many heterosexual couples who commit child abuse, and who don't give their children proper attention and care. This depletes the argument that "only a society that produces children and raises them properly survives." There are also many single parents raising their children, and even children who have been raised poorly can still survive. It's a loving caretaker who treats their children properly, and teaches their children right from wrong that matters, not the gender of the parents.

Also the fact that single parents are capable of raising their children also depletes the argument that their must be a mother or father figure, as said it's how the children are treated and raised that has an impact on them.

Second, the psychological studies- While there have been many studies on this The American Academy of Pediatrics conducted a study which states:

"Extensive data available from more than 30 years of research reveal that children raised by gay and lesbian parents have demonstrated resilience with regard to social, psychological, and sexual health despite economic and legal disparities and social stigma. Many studies have demonstrated that children's well-being is affected much more by their relationships with their parents, their parents' sense of competence and security, and the presence of social and economic support for the family than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents. Lack of opportunity for same-gender couples to marry adds to families’ stress, which affects the health and welfare of all household members. Because marriage strengthens families and, in so doing, benefits children’s development, children should not be deprived of the opportunity for their parents to be married. Paths to parenthood that include assisted reproductive techniques, adoption, and foster parenting should focus on competency of the parents rather than their sexual orientation." (3)

I also raise the question to my opponent of the amount of regard that is given to thousands of same sex couples' children who are humiliated because their parents marriage are treated as a second class marriage, and are unable to receive the same benefits of those of heterosexual marriages. This was raised in the supreme court ruling:

"By creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State, DOMA forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect. By this dynamic DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state sanctioned same-sex marriages; for it tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives." (1)

Because of these reasons there is ground to sue states for discrimination under the law for the constitution also protects equal liberties.

Thank you, I await your response.

Sources:

(1) http://www.supremecourt.gov...

(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...

(3) http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...

xXCryptoXx

Con

Thank you for your response.

Remember I am arguing that not only should gay marriage not be legalized across the United States, but I am also arguing that gay marriage shouldn’t be legalized at all across the United States. This means I will be responding in accordance with gay marriage being completely excluded from the marital institution.

Since believe there will be enough character space I will simply quote my opponent and respond accordingly to make sure I contend to everything he states.

My opponent seems to take my stance on marriage between man and woman and how it benefits society into acceptance, and chooses for the most part to not contend to very many of my arguments.


“While it is correct that the 5th amendment does not guarantee total freedom for anyone to do whatever they want, it does protect equal liberties as ruled by the supreme court in The United States v. Windsor.”

The United States v. Windsor only applied to couples are denied marital benefits when they are legally involved in the institution of marriage. For if it wasn’t, then absolutely any relationship that is not included in marriage could sue on ground that they are not receiving benefits. Obviously this applies only to couples who can receive marital benefits, but are unjustly excluded from receiving them.

Yes and equal liberties are given. Regardless of sexual orientation everyone can still be married to one person of the opposite sex. What you are arguing for is an expansion of rights for all people to also be allowed to marry someone of the same-sex, but I have shown from my last round’s arguments that not only is there no need to do that, but that it is also not in the society’s best interest.


"The power the Constitution grants it also restrains. And though Congress has great authority to design laws to fit its own conception of sound national policy, it cannot deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment."

I did indeed explain that the Due Process Clause only protects from unfairly taking away another’s liberty. I showed that not only do homosexuals have the same rights to marriage as heterosexuals, but I also showed that there is absolutely no need to extend our rights to allow us to marry same-sex couples because it takes away the reason the government recognizes marriage in the first place.


“Let's start with the aspect of common sense- there are many heterosexual couples who commit child abuse, and who don't give their children proper attention and care. There are also many single parents raising their children, and even children who have been raised poorly can still survive. It's a loving caretaker who treats their children properly, and teaches their children right from wrong that matters, not the gender of the parents. Also the fact that single parents are capable of raising their children also depletes the argument that their must be a mother or father figure, as said it's how the children are treated and raised that has an impact on them.”

In the same way, there are also many homosexual couples that will also commit child abuse, who won’t give their children attention and care, and will be a single parent raising a child.

However, this is all simply irrelevant to marriage itself.

You see, allowing gay marriage still turns marriage into something about the emotional relationship between two people because the relationship they pursue has no special link to children. The government again, has absolutely no interest in the private relationships of people.

Heterosexual couples however, do have this natural link to children to be raised into a natural family. Heterosexual couples still naturally promote and have a family unit regardless of the few who don’t.

Gay couples don’t have this link at all, so the government has no interest in allowing them into the marital institution.

Again, for as long as the government regulates marriage they have a duty to define marriage in a way that best benefits society; allowing gay couples distorts the reason the government recognizes marriage in the first place and is therefore not in the government’s best interest to recognizes gay marriage.

Only a society that produces children and raises them properly will survive.

This is a given fact. A society that does not have children will die out and a society that does not raise them properly will not know how to take care of themselves and run said society.

Heterosexual couples fit these criteria perfectly because they naturally tend to procreate and have a good family unit. The government wants to promote this because it is good for the general outcome of the society.

My opponent argues that gay couples can still raise children properly and that allowing them to be married strengthens this family unit.

Homosexual couples do not have a direct link to children and the family unit through the relationship they pursue, so even if they could raise children properly or even if marriage would strengthen the family unit they still don’t have a special link to children nor a family unit because naturally they cannot procreate and have children to be raised by their biological parents.

In addition, gay couples only have a special link to having a private relationship with each other which again, the government is simply not interested in.

So I argue, either gay marriage is legalized under a total privatization of the institution where the government doesn’t regulate it at all, or the government fulfills its duty to define marriage in a way that best benefits society, which is inherently through the relationship heterosexuals pursue because they have a special link to children and the family unit.


“I also raise the question to my opponent of the amount of regard that is given to thousands of same sex couples' children who are humiliated because their parents marriage are treated as a second class marriage, and are unable to receive the same benefits of those of heterosexual marriages.”

Well under my arguments there would be no such thing as second-class marriage because gay marriage would not be legalized at all. Also, under my arguments gay couples would not receive benefits at all because they would not be allowed to marry each other.

You see under my opening arguments (which you really didn’t contend to) I showed that there was simply no reason to recognize gay marriage at all so really there is no reason for me to argue this since I am already arguing that gay marriage should be excluded from the marital institution all together unless the government stops regulating it.


Conclusion

Most of my opponent’s arguments relies on gay marriage only being legalized in some states and how that leads to other problems, therefore gay marriage should be legalized everywhere.

However, his arguments don’t properly contend to my own because I am arguing that gay marriage should not be legalized at all, therefore such problems wouldn’t even exist. Until my opponent can properly show that gay marriage should be legalized regardless of problems that have arisen from gay marriage only being legalized in some states, he cannot fulfill his BOP.

I have also shown that it would be far more beneficial to legalize gay marriage under the circumstance the government stops regulating it. In addition, I also showed that it would be more beneficial to the society for gay marriage to not be legalized for as long as the government does regulate.

Debate Round No. 2
piede

Pro

piede forfeited this round.
xXCryptoXx

Con

Well my opponent sadly did not respond in the final round, so he drops all my arguments.

Good debate.

Vote for meh.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Muted 3 years ago
Muted
I'm not sure if I will have the time to take this debate. I don't exactly am Con to this position, but neither am I Pro. I will keep track of this though, and maybe I will take it.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ClassicRobert 3 years ago
ClassicRobert
piedexXCryptoXxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con for the forfeit. I'll probably read more of the debate later to allocate more points.