The Instigator
lordjosh
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Maya9
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The People Should Decide What Is Marriage

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: 2/8/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 811 times Debate No: 6820
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

lordjosh

Pro

For the right of self-governance is vital to a free society, it is the right of the people to determine what will be recognized as a marriage.

The authority granted to the U.S. government does not allow them to make any such determination. All privileges and immunities granted by federal law(i.e.tax credits)for married couples are unconstitutional. Likewise, homosexuals have no right to be recognized in the same unconstitutional manner.

The individual states may exercise their authority to govern on the basis of social developement and morality, under the requirement of retaining a representitive form of government, and pursuant to the individual states' constitutions. As an example, California verified the will of it's citizens by amending the state's constitution. In response to an eroneous California State Supreme Court verdict, the people overwhelmingly restated law for their willingness to recognize marriage as a union between a man and a woman only. The peoples' will must reign supreme when it has met it's due process.
Maya9

Con

Since you didn't give a specific definition of "the people", I am going to assume that you are referring to voters.

"The authority granted to the U.S. government does not allow them to make any such determination. All privileges and immunities granted by federal law(i.e.tax credits)for married couples are unconstitutional. Likewise, homosexuals have no right to be recognized in the same unconstitutional manner."

I find it doubtful that federal privileges granted as a result of marriage can be considered unconstitutional. It WOULD be unconstitutional if marriages were made under federal law, since that power is not given to the federal government in the Constitution (and is therefore by default a power of the states). However, that is not the case. Marriages are contracts made under STATE law, but recognized at the federal level. Therefore, your first argument is false.

"The individual states may exercise their authority to govern on the basis of social developement and morality, under the requirement of retaining a representitive form of government, and pursuant to the individual states' constitutions. As an example, California verified the will of it's citizens by amending the state's constitution. In response to an eroneous California State Supreme Court verdict, the people overwhelmingly restated law for their willingness to recognize marriage as a union between a man and a woman only. The peoples' will must reign supreme when it has met it's due process."

"The people" have no more right to define marriage for every person than the state. The majority does not own the word "marriage", nor does any state government.

I'd also like to point out that the state constitutional amendments that ban same-sex marriage in many cases are violations of the U.S. Constitution. Articles IV, Section 1 clearly states that individual states must respect "public acts" in other states. Any state law that prohibits out-of-state same-sex marriages from being recognized in that state is a violation of the U.S. Constitution. The Defense of Marriage Act itself is a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

As for the legal contract in question, I submit that "the people" AND the state governments do not have the legal right to restrict the contracts of individuals. The freedom of contract is ALSO protected by the U.S. Constitution in Article I, Section 10.
Debate Round No. 1
lordjosh

Pro

A couple of definitions are in order.

"the people"; by this I mean the citizens of the several states. The same as "We The People".

Marriage; 1: The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of law, 1996

"I find it doubtful that federal privileges granted as a result of marriage can be considered unconstitutional."

The Constitution grants very little authority, if any, to Congress to grant special privileges to a person or a group of people, based on promoting social standards. For instance, it is unconstitutional for the feds to give a tax credit to someone who decided to raise a child. The same for college tuition. Nowhere in the text of Art. 1, or in the Articles Of Amendment, can I find authority to promote certain social/life choices over others. This includes any privileges granted on the basis of marriage.

"'The people' have no more right to define marriage for every person than the state. The majority does not own the word 'marriage', nor does any state government."

Actually, the current definition of marriage, as I posted at the head of this round, is the recognized meaning set forth through law as evident in every state. The Law supercedes any majority opinion. The majority in any given state can alter its definition, persuant to their constitutions and law. The people retain the right to define, recognize and promote marriage as they see fit within their respective states.

My opponent's claim that the "Full Faith and Credit" clause bars a state from not recognizing same sex marriage is unsubstantial. The idea that if one state makes law, than all other states must follow suit is not supported in the text of the clause, or in practice. The clause has two objectives. 1: to ensure that every citizen may know the laws, and have access to the public records "and judicial Proceedings of every other state." 2: and that if a person breaks a law in one state, another state may not protect that person.

"As for the legal contract in question, I submit that "the people" AND the state governments do not have the legal right to restrict the contracts of individuals. The freedom of contract is ALSO protected by the U.S. Constitution in Article I, Section 10."

Under Art. 1 section10, states are forbidden from "making Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts". This does not support my opponents statement above or her argument in total. If one was to apply her understanding of the clause, then it would be illegal for a state to ban prostitution if a contract exists between the prostitute and pimp or "john". Further more this is not about the right of two or more people coming to an agreement with each other pertaining to how they choose to define their relationship to each other. It is about the citizens of a state detrmining what relationships they will recognize in pursuit of a just and moral and healthy society.
Maya9

Con

Maya9 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
lordjosh

Pro

lordjosh forfeited this round.
Maya9

Con

Maya9 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Maya9 8 years ago
Maya9
The motherboard on my laptop is fried. Until I can get a new one, I'll be posting arguments using other computers, so don't be surprised that my posting is erratic.
Posted by lordjosh 8 years ago
lordjosh
Good luck with your computer. If you don't make it, let me know when your up and running.
Posted by Maya9 8 years ago
Maya9
I just wanted to let my opponent know that my laptop is currently broken, so I probably won't be able to start this debate until Tuesday. It's very difficult to make an argument on an iPhone with its lack of copy/paste functionality.
No votes have been placed for this debate.