Gay Marriage

I'm glad of the opportunity to debate this fascinating topic. I will begin by addressing umlolyeah's points one by one. "I believe that marriage is a simple right that each and every person should have" Assuming you are speaking of people over the age of majority, this is a "right" that each and every person does have, and it is a right guaranteed by every state in the US. Every adult can marry any other adult provided several qualifications are met. These qualifications differ by state, but most stipulate that marriage is a union between two individuals of opposite gender.[1] Given this definition of the word marriage, "gay marriage" is a contradiction in terms and a completely incoherent concept. I understand that this is the very topic at issue in this debate, but I just wanted to make it clear that the right to marry is held by everyone equally, even if they don't have the freedom to choose any partner they wish. I also want to make it clear that marriage is not a legitimate "right" in the sense that my opponent contends. While I would agree that every person has the right to be in any relationship they choose (assuming their chosen partner is capable of providing consent), extending that to the right to be granted special privileges simply because one is in a relationship is a discriminatory move. By such actions the government declares that individuals in long-term, officially recognized pair bonds have different rights than single individuals or individuals in polyamorous relationships. There is no basis for this distinction. "It is a ridiculous separation that the gay community faces from the straight community, and it also makes the U.S. more of a hypocritical nation than it already is since "Liberty (freedom from obligation, restriction, hampering conditions) and Justice (the quality of being correct) for all" is not being followed through yet again." Several points here: 1) Restrictions on liberty are commonplace. The laws restrict my freedom of action constantly. I cannot murder, steal, own another human, or sexually abuse my child. Just to name a few. The list of restrictions on liberty is much longer of course. I am merely trying to illustrate the fact that a law is by necessity a restriction on liberty and that this is not always a bad thing. Note also that I am NOT attempting to equate gay relationships or gay marriage with the acts I mentioned above. I am, again, simply pointing out that liberty is not an inviolable concept in all cases and that the fact of its restriction is no reason to reject a law. 2) There is no such thing as a right to "the quality of being correct". If I believe 1+1 is 2 and you insist that it is 3, we can't both be correct, making a right to correctness utterly unenforceable in this situation. And indeed, it is a clear representation of many, if not most, situations; different people (sometimes even a single person :P ) can hold mutually exclusive viewpoints. No two mutually exclusive viewpoints can be correct. To enforce "the quality of being correct" as a right possessed by all, one would have to discard logic completely and endorse contradictions. "with the laws of this country as not only is the inability to marry a restriction on the people" Returning to my first point, everyone has an equal right to marry. The restrictions on choice of partner apply to every citizen equally. "the opposing arguments are all based on religious values which are completely invalid to the constitution." The constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"[2] The attempt to ban gay marriage is not an attempt to establish a religion or a theocracy. The fact that many Americans hold religious beliefs which color their view on this issue is the direct result of the free exercise clause, and their efforts to apply these values to law are perfectly constitutional (remember they are trying to legislate specific values not a religion). "Marriage between religious sects and between races used to be completely wrong in society but have been overturned and allowed. Why can't we add gay marriage?" In the decision on the supreme court case declaring laws against interracial marriages unconstitutional (the aptly named "Loving vs Virginia") Chief Justice Warren wrote: "There can be no question but that Virginia's miscegenation statutes rest solely upon distinctions drawn according to race. The statutes proscribe generally accepted conduct if engaged in by members of different races. Over the years, this Court has consistently repudiated "distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry" as being "odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality." At the very least, the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to the "most rigid scrutiny," Korematsu v. United States (1944), and, if they are ever to be upheld, they must be shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective, independent of the racial discrimination which it was the object of the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate." [3] Marriage laws are not discriminatory in this way. They do not "proscribe generally accepted conduct if engaged in" by members of different genders. The freedom to marry a person of the opposite sex is open to all. The cases are not parallel. While it is true that a woman has the freedom to marry a man while a man does not have that precise freedom (and vice versa), this does not automatically invalidate the law. As Justice Warren said in the same decision "The Equal Protection Clause requires the consideration of whether the classifications drawn by any statute constitute an arbitrary and invidious discrimination." [3] Keeping the above in mind, one has to consider the reason marriage is a legal issue at all. A relationship does not need sanction by the government to exist. Homosexuals are perfectly free to fall in love and live their lives together, as free as any straight couple to do the same. The fact that the government provides tax and other benefits to married couples is the main reason gay couples wish to have their relationships recognized legally [4] and the financial and legal benefits of marriage to the couple are clear[5]. But I ask you- does the government have a legitimate interest here? Is it not arbitrary and discriminatory to reward people in love with tax breaks when people who are not in love do not receive equal rewards? Why does "tax break" follow from "marriage contract" at all? Given the equal protection clause, I would argue that marriage, as it now stands, is unconstitutional, and thus that gay marriage, as a type of marriage, is the same. 1. http://www.usmarriagelaws.com... 2. http://www.usconstitution.net... 3. http://www.law.umkc.edu... 4. http://www.religioustolerance.org... 5. http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...