The Instigator
bigal1999
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Preston
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

State's should have the right to impose gay marriage not the feds

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/16/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 469 times Debate No: 76603
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

bigal1999

Pro

I believe the state government should have control over whether to impose or neglect gay marriage on its citizens. This is a better way to protect minorities who oppose gay marriage. If the federal government controls this decision then states like Kentucky will have many unhappy citizens who didn't want it in the first place.
Preston

Con

Alright i will use the following arguments to refute the resolution:

- - Constitutionality - -
My first contention is that through the constitution the federal government is given the power to impose these laws not states.

"Under the Constitution, powers reserved to the national government include:

Print money (bills and coins)
Declare war
Establish an army and navy
Enter into treaties with foreign governments
Regulate commerce between states and international trade
Establish post offices and issue postage
Make laws necessary to enforce the Constitution

http://usgovinfo.about.com...;

Because they have the power to enforce the constitution and civil rights are guaranteed through the constitution we see that the federal government are the ones who would be responsible for these laws.

- - Relying on states can hinder growth - -
In the past when civil rights are in question we see that states that disagree with the right oppose it and do not protect it. For example, African americans were treated poorly and less protected in states that did not believe they had rights. Women were not allowed to vote is some states when they could in others, if we rely on states for development we will still see people deprived of their rights. (http://civilrights.findlaw.com...)

- - Neglecting this issue is not a choice - -
You cannot ignore civil rights issues, this is another reason why federal government is superior, because in our republic we see the federal government able to swiftly effect all states.

- - BOP - -
Because my opponent is pro he must show State's should have the right to impose gay marriage not the feds, thus he must show the superiority of state over federal government in relations to civil rights.
Debate Round No. 1
bigal1999

Pro

Since when has the federal government ever controlled a states marriage policy. I understand that this is a big civil rights issue, but the problem is no one looks out for the Christians who aren't comfortable with living with gay marriage in their community. At constitutioncenter.org it clearly states that states have always controlled the marriage policy. If we allow the states to act on their own it will help the majority. For instance New York will probably allow gay marriage to support the majority. Texas probably won't allow it because it will offend the Christians that live their. It doesn't make any since to force a law on a group of people who do not wish to follow it. If we let gay rights slowly become passed in each state it will prevent people from complaining about it.
Preston

Con

I will push my arguments since they are unrefuted and I will respond to my opponents statement:

"Since when has the federal government ever controlled a states marriage policy."
for as long as they have offered deductions on federal taxes for marriage. It isnt about at what level a mandate is enforced, it only matters that the mandate is made, and it will only be made federally.

"I understand that this is a big civil rights issue, but the problem is no one looks out for the Christians who aren't comfortable with living with gay marriage in their community."
What you are advocating for is simply segregation, because I dont like you, you cannot live near me. This is fallacious and doesn't actually show warranty for state action over federal.

"At constitutioncenter.org it clearly states that states have always controlled the marriage policy."
where, cite it, and show me why this source is superior to the two I have provided.

" If we allow the states to act on their own it will help the majority."
This shows minorities will not be benefited and thus left out, a government isn't here to represent the majority, its here for every individual.

"For instance New York will probably allow gay marriage to support the majority. Texas probably won't allow it because it will offend the Christians that live their. It doesn't make any since to force a law on a group of people who do not wish to follow it."
This is your fatal flaw, you are saying, if the majority wants to deny a right they can, simply because we wouldn't want to force it upon them, EX: Women shouldn't have an amendment allowing them to vote, let the states decide, we wouldn't want to force people to let them vote.

" If we let gay rights slowly become passed in each state it will prevent people from complaining about it."
This is an ineffective and is not guaranteed to allow individuals their rights.


AT THIS POINT MY OPPONENT HAS NOT FULFILLED THE BOP
Debate Round No. 2
bigal1999

Pro

Minorities are far more often to benefit from the state government instead of the federal government since the majority of America is what elects the politicians that run our country. The federal government is one entity that only makes one decision. When it comes to civil rights issues this could anger many people. Texas can make a decision to benefit the people that live their, while New York can benefit their people. These two states have two very different ideologies. What if the federal government decided to do away with gay marriage altogether. The people of New York will still be protected by their state laws. That's why I think states should have control of this issue, because if you give the federal government the power over this then they could take it away.
The right way to legalize gay marriage without any opposition is to let the states enforce it on their own. Look at the world today. The federal government abolished segregation yet African Americans continued to face discrimination. It is better to let things happen gradually that way they will last forever with little or no opposition.
Also you accused me of advocating segregation. I never mentioned anything about where someone could live. The word segregation means to separate where people can go. You might want to check your vocabulary. See the definition of segregation at http://dictionary.reference.com... .
Preston

Con

Ok I will respond and explain why Con wins:

"Minorities are far more often to benefit from the state government instead of the federal government since the majority of America is what elects the politicians that run our country."

Obviously minorities do not benefit if you are advocating for removing their rights simply to please the majority, the purpose of the federal government is to protect those rights and thus it is their job to do so.

"The federal government is one entity that only makes one decision. When it comes to civil rights issues this could anger many people. Texas can make a decision to benefit the people that live their, while New York can benefit their people. These two states have two very different ideologies. What if the federal government decided to do away with gay marriage altogether. The people of New York will still be protected by their state laws. That's why I think states should have control of this issue, because if you give the federal government the power over this then they could take it away."

Once again, it is not the governments job to please a majority but instead to protect rights, you have not shown that states will be protecting a right instead you have said its ok if they don't protect rights because you don't want anyone to be angry. Slavery would still exist if we left it up to missouri to abolish it by them selves. Women would not be able to vote in some areas because men don't support it.


"The right way to legalize gay marriage without any opposition is to let the states enforce it on their own. Look at the world today. The federal government abolished segregation yet African Americans continued to face discrimination. It is better to let things happen gradually that way they will last forever with little or no opposition."

segregation still exists and its arrogant to assert that it doesn't, example - Omaha, Ne which had/has legal segregation. However federal government can and should do away with this, if we wait for the majority to approve of change we are depriving the minority of rights intentionally to please the majority.

"Also you accused me of advocating segregation. I never mentioned anything about where someone could live. The word segregation means to separate where people can go. You might want to check your vocabulary. See the definition of segregation at http://dictionary.reference.com...... ."

You made the statement :

"I understand that this is a big civil rights issue, but the problem is no one looks out for the Christians who aren't comfortable with living with gay marriage in their community."

The christians advocated for slavery and have deprived minorities of rights, segregation is seperation and that is what occurs when you allow places like nebraska (https://en.wikipedia.org...) to pass laws and tax areas based off race.


WHY YOU VOTE CON:

You vote con today because my opponent has not shown that states deserve this right, constitutionally the federal government holds this job. This is unrefuted.

You will vote con because my opponent failed to provide his BOP.

You will vote con because I have shown that ignoring the minorities rights to please the majority violates the constitution.

You will vote con because I have shown states will not protect individual rights, we cannot rely on them, if we give the option to ignore rights some will.

thankyou

Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
The Constitution was not written based on what the majority approves.
Posted by ObjectiveDre 1 year ago
ObjectiveDre
I get how you may see my comment as "debating" but I don't agree about saying one minority group is in greater need than another is just flat out wrong. I did not "assert", I was stating an argument can be made. Whether I make an "assertion" (more forceful) or say "an argument can be made" neither can technically be "wrong" as they are opinions/beliefs unless I explicitly state them as facts. If they are immeasurable, how do we prioritize who is helped first? At the height of the Civil Rights movement I doubt people were thinking, "you know these Muslims really need this." While they are another "minority" protected under the Civil Rights Act based on religion, clearly the movement gained momentum as a result of discrimination and hatred against the African American minority group. In any case, I'll leave you two to it. You have spoken for "both sides" and have noted it is irritable.
Posted by Preston 1 year ago
Preston
@ObjectiveDre please refrain from debating the round in comments, it makes it irritating for both sides, you are also wrong in asserting that one minority is in more need than another, because its immeasurable. Instead you should assume they both need equal protection that is great rather than little for one and more for another.
Posted by ObjectiveDre 1 year ago
ObjectiveDre
bigal1999,

I think that using the argument "This is a better way to protect minorities who oppose gay marriage" can be seen as a contradiction because by denying gay rights on an arbitrary basis by state is in fact NOT protecting ANOTHER minority. Isn't this just leveraging one minority against another based on what some prefer? I would even argue that the other minority (LGBT comm) is the group that needs the protection moreso than the other based on the fact that if denied rights to marriage you are in fact affecting in ways way more substantial (taxes, benefits, possibly even moving to a state which is more accepting) than a group of people in states that simply are "unhappy" with the decision.
No votes have been placed for this debate.