The Instigator
Con (against)
The Contender
Pro (for)

Should Homosexual Marriage Be Left To Federal Court?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
TheMonsterKing456 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/10/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 506 times Debate No: 99789
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)




I believe that Gay Marriage should be up to state law and should not be forced to enforce it (Civil Union is irrelevant in this debate)


I accept. I will be arguing that gay marriage should not be left up to each state to decide, and that states should be forced to recognize it. Essentially, I am for the universal legalization of same-sex marriage in the United States.

Best of luck to Con in the coming rounds.
Debate Round No. 1


Best of luck to Pro. I will begin instead by explaining why i believe it should be left to the individual state instead of Federal court and won't go into too much detail until the later rounds. this is basically just my introduction for my argument.
I believe that if in Federal Court, no matter which it decides, should not be accounted for all states because of its divisiveness, if gay marriage is allowed it can go against some peoples religious beliefs of those that are charged to hold the Marriage or if it to be held at a church, and if it doesn't get legalized homosexuals would consider it a vole of human rights. this is different from most issues. the federal government shouldn't interfere in whether or not gay marriages are legal or illegal, it should belong to the states decision.

again i have not gone into full detail of my argument, this is just what i am mainly arguing about, i will add in legal information in the future rounds


I thank Con for his very timely R2 post. The structure for this debate was not posted in Round 1, but I feel it unfair to begin rebutting his points in Round 2, so I will begin with my opening statements as well.
The format for my claims will be as follows:
Claim 1: Human rights issues are of national importance
Claim 2: Treats the LGBT+ community as second-class citizens
Claim 3: Marriage is a civil institution, not a religious one
Claim 4: Gay marriage = Marriage, and "Religious freedom"
[C1] Human rights issues are of national importance
Issues such as gay marriage should not be left up to each individual state to deal with. They should not have the ability to reverse the Supreme Court's decision in such an impactful human rights law. Giving this kind of power to the states would further divide the nation, and would raise a lot of other questions. What if you got married to someone of the same sex in one state, but then moved to another? Would your marriage license be revoked, or would they have to honor it? Besides citing "religious freedom" (which I will get to later), what reasonable explanation would one have for denying same-sex couples the right to marry? As one writer points out:
"Under the Supremacy Clause the U.S. Constitution is the highest law of the United States, which means it supersedes the state constitutions. Whereas state courts do not have the power to modify state constitutions, federal courts do — that is, they can invalidate a section of a state constitution if they find it to be in violation of the U.S. Constitution." [S1]
During the Prop 8 case in California which intended to revoke same-sex couples' ability to marry, the courts ultimately decided the bill violated gay people's rights under equal protection and due process. When you have a subset of American citizens who are being unconstitutionally discriminated against, the federal court absolutely has the ability and the right to intervene.
[C2] Treats the LGBT+ community as second-class citizens
Allowing the states the power to reject the SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage would cause nothing but trouble, and would tell the gay community they are second-class citizens compared to heterosexual couples. In my eyes, this issue can be equated to women's suffrage or segregation; a group of people not having the same rights as everyone else.
[C3] Marriage is a civil institution, not a religious one
What exactly is the purpose of marriage? Historically speaking, its purpose was to join two people and their families together. Not every culture treats marriage the same as we do, as it sometimes has little to do with the love two people share. Regardless of the history or its meaning, it's undoubtetly true that marriage brings with it many, many benefits [S2]. Marriage also grants a couple legal protections that civil unions simply don't provide. The Constitution is not a religious document, nor is marriage a religious institution.
"If a church wants to have so much say in national and state politics, then it also should pay taxes and any donations made to it should not be tax deductible...Marriage in this country is a civil right. It affords couples thousands of civil, financial and social benefits." [S3]
If marriage's purpose was procreation, we would not allow infertile couples and the elderly to marry. If it was for religious reasons, we would not allow atheists to marry. (Also, the United States is nor a Christian nation, nor was it founded on Christian principles.) Why shouldn't homosexuals be given the right to marry, given that the separation of church and state protects them? The benefits of gay marriage are plenty, and they hurt no one in the process.

[C4] Gay marriage = Marriage, and "Religious freedom"
Many people these days are choosing to cite "religious freedom" as grounds for denying or refusing services to the LGBT+ community. However, the idea of homosexuality being immoral is not constant throughout all religions; most, in fact, do not hold this belief. I'm not saying exercising religious freedom and liberty is not important, though I would consider myself an atheist. There are plenty of communities in our country where religion is the backbone that unites its citizens.
"However, any narrow construction of religious liberty not only ignores the diversity of America’s many religious traditions but demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept itself." [S4]
In other words, just because you are a Christian and you happen to interpret the Bible to say homosexuality is immoral, the United States does not have to (nor should it) construct legislation around that belief. Personally, I believe we should stop calling it "gay marriage," and instead simply to refer to it as "marriage," since that's what it is. It is no less meaningful or legally-binding as "traditional" marriage.
I thank Con for being given the opportunity to discuss this topic, and I look forward to hearing his rebuttal in Round 3.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by sboss18 2 years ago
Dude, don't start debates you don't plan to finish.
Posted by sboss18 2 years ago
Post a blank argument if you're going to forfeit the round.
Posted by sboss18 2 years ago
lol, you made an account just to post that comment.
Posted by RadicalAsian 2 years ago
No, there should be no gay marriage in america, fook off you gayy lick sucking men!
Posted by sboss18 2 years ago
My apologies, my R2 post should read:
"...the United States is not* a Christian nation...", not "nor".
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.