I feel like I should mention right off the bat, I am 100% in support of it. But…
Today in my history class we got on the topic of gay rights. Most of the people in my class spoke out in favorite of gay marriage, but when my teacher started playing devil’s advocate, I realized how little it seemed like everyone (including myself) knew. I mean, he said things like Prove why it should be legal based on the Constitution, and no one really had anything except that the Constitution should allow it, and then my teacher said But it doesn’t. So what should we do–change the constitution? And everyone said no, but then he told us again to come up with support for it based on laws and whatnot, and no one could.
So it made me wonder about other teens… Do YOU have an argument for it based on politics and the Constitution (or whatever you have in your country) that’s more political, not just ethical?
BQ: Have you taken the ACT? If so, what was your score?
well we have freedom of expression, speech, and religion…. so its kinda free to…. there is not a place in the constitution where it says gay marriage is alloud but you can interpret it in there… the constitution doesnt nessecarry say what you can and can’t do you have to interprett it as what you may and also put in what you think is right…. people who do not approve of gay marriage just have problems cause if you really love someone then it’s your choice with what you want to do. this topic makes me soooo mad becaure i cant stand to hear what the people who dont support it say… they really dont have enough evidence saying its wrong…you cant control everything everyone does, and people have freedom to do things they want as long as they are not endangering anyone else. and i dont believe gay marriages are really hurting anyone but it is hurting the people who cant marry the person they love because others dont thing same sex marriage should be legal thats REDICULOUS!!!! well i guess most of this is my oppinion but there is some constitutional things in there… i hoped this helped.
I just answered another question about gay marriage, actually. Coinkidink.
Anyway. For one thing, though it doesn’t really give a reason to specifically ALLOW gay marriage, the Defense of Marriage Act doesn’t work with the Full Faith and Credit clause of the American Constitution. So I think that needs to go. Even if we’re not at the point of nationally redefining marriage (which we’re not), I don’t think any state has a right to not recognize same-sex marriages performed in another state.
For another thing, I think it violates the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment: however, that’s a little more controversial, since many would argue that marriage is not a privilege to everyone (and the 14th Amendment prohibits the government from making any laws that abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens). However, this is the way I see it: There is a separation of church and state. The only real argument against gay marriage is a religious one. Therefore, it should have no bearing on the definition of marriage. Either the government should make sure marriage includes all couples (that is, human, two-person couples… just for all those people who claim that the next step after same-sex marriage is people marrying dogs and/or multiple people)–free of any religious definition of couple–or should not have a role in marriage at all.
There’s a possibility Proposition 8 will make it the Supreme Court in the next ten years, and I really hope it does. I’d love to see marriage redefined to include same-sex couples at the national level, and even if it isn’t, I think there will be a much higher public response if the case makes it that far.
BQ: I got a 32.
Edit: To the people saying that the Constitution doesn’t mention gay marriage, I think that’s probably the teacher’s point–that the Constitution doesn’t specifically mention it, and therefore, how can we make it legal at the national level, if the national government makes laws solely based on the powers enumerated in the Constitution?
The Constitution actually says NOTHING about the prefernce of homosexual and heterosexual marriage and relationships.
Next time he asks that ":based on laws and Constitution": tell him…
It is stated in the Constitution that anything not listed in there is undoubtedly a right of the people and states, to a reasonable point. If its not in the Constitution than its not smoething that needs to be changed.
The Constitution and founding fathers made a point to make a democracy, a government for the people, by the people. They made a point for the people to have the utmost freedom to a reasonable point. The Constitution, and federal law, does not forbid gay marriage therefore, on a federal level, it is legal. On a State level, that is the states decision.
Im no genius this is just my preference.
Also if it adds any sense, to add the 1st Amendment in the Bill of Rights to the argument. Freedom of Expression? Isnt gay marriage an expression of love? Amendment 1 in the physical Constitution says that people cannto be polotically or any other profeesional means be discriminted agianst by there race, appearence, religion etc. So why should they be discriminted by for the expression of love and homosexual prefernce? It would be totally hypocritical agianst the 1st Amendment, Freedom of Expression. Again, im just a naive little 8th grader, this is all I know, and this is what I think.
You can’t change the Constitution entirely – but you can add to it. Think about it. We started off with the basic Bill of Rights. But that was in 1775. Now it’s 2012, and so far we have 27 amendments. Do you think the Supreme Court or legislature or whomever just came up with 27 amendments off the bat? No, they didn’t. For instance, the 24th amendment was added in support of African Americans having rights and not being discriminated against. Who’s to say they can’t write a 28th amendment, much like the amendment that lets people vote regardless of gender, ethnicity, race, or religion, except instead of voting, have it be marriage? There is nothing wrong with gay marriage. No matter what any one says, there is nothing wrong with it. It’s like how in the 60’s people used to have separate everything for colored people and white people because of their skin color. Why is it that now, we’re not giving Americans the same rights because some of their orientation? Just because my friend Kylyn is a lesbian does not make her inferior to straight people or incapable of falling in love and wanting to get married to the woman she’s in love with. I think it’s ridiculous that people can’t seem to understand that.
Did you also know that it wasn’t until the late 1800’s that ":under God": was added into the Pledge of Allegiance in America? It didn’t start out that way. I found that out a while ago, and since then, I have not stood up or recited the pledge at my school because I feel like it is an insult to me for not believing in God. I can do that because of my freedom of religion that I have under the law. Just look for things like that, and it doesn’t hurt to actually read the constitution. It’s quite interesting, actually.
BQ: Haven’t yet, do I need to?
My ACT was a 34.
The answer is pretty simple: to deny marriage to same-sex couples is a violation of their civil rights. That raises the question, ":Well, is marriage a civil right?": It may surprise you that it has already been decided by the Supreme Court whether or not marriage is a civil right, and it turns out that marriage is, in fact, a civil right. In fact, marriage was explicitly ruled a civil right over 40 years ago.
It is true that the Constitution doesn’t explicitly mention gay marriage (or marriage in general.) However, the 14th Amendment contains the immortal equal protection clause: ":no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.":
It was on the basis of this clause that the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Loving v. Virginia (1967) that, ":Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man’, fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.":
In short terms: All statewide bans on interracial marriage were overturned because marriage was deemed a civil (and therefore, constitutionally-protected) right, and the bans constituted a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
So the next time your teacher says, ":Why should marriage be extended to same-sex couples?":, you should say, ":Because it is a fundamental civil, constitutionally-protected right.": And if he replies, ":Marriage is not a civil right":, you can respond, ":Really? Because the Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you. Loving v. Virginia, 1967.":
For one thing, the constitution doesn’t have anything to say that men can’t marry other men, so really it should be legal. It’s just that states decide the laws, so unless if an amendment is proposed, it’s legal or illegal depending on what state.
Haven’t taken ACT yet (Freshman), so I don’t know.
As americans we are promised life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I myself am nonheteronormative (not straight, I like girls, and am also a girl) we are promised to be given the same privileges as others. By giving straight people the right to marry a partner who they love emotionally and physically, but not gay people, straight people are being given certain privileges. As long as it does not interfere with anyone else’s pursuit of happiness by being harmful (emotionally, physically, or economically) the way one practices life can (and will) disagree with other’s opinions, beliefs, and or religious teachings. Because we are a country that is supposed to be without a set religion, anyone using the argument of religious teachings should be cast away, seeing as that itself goes against our constitution. It can’t hurt anyone else in anyway, besides the side-note of disagreeing opinions/beliefs (which are allowed and do not count.) other than that it cannot do anyharm to anyone else.
":We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.":
-Declaration of Independence
You are presenting a weak straw arguments against gay marriage. What you are saying is that gays should not get married because they should pay more taxes. You do not make any sense. Marriage is a personal choice and right for any couple. It represents long term and life commitment.
I support gay marriage honestly they have just as much right as every man or woman that gets married. NO ONE has the right to judge them based on their sexuality (I have a gay uncle and two lesbian aunts). And when I took my ACT I made a 23 my first time!
Which I have been married to my husband for two years.
":…freedom, liberty, and justice for all…":
This country was based off of freedom. Religion has forced these terrible ideas into people’s minds…Gays getting married wouldn’t hurt anyone. You wanna hate gays? Fine. But do not take away their rights as humans.
@Wizard: The gays don’t want it to be legalized simply because they want to get married, they do it because they want and deserve to be equal under the law.