Gay Marriage
Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 7:12 pm
Important Note: We have replaced the Dec. 9 Debate on College Loans.
-------
The brief. Note: The word "gay" throughout this brief refers to the entire LGBTQ thing. It's a pain to write out over and over, and doesn't sound as snappy.
"Homosexual marriage is a highly controversial issue that has been dividing the nation for several years recently. Supporters of state and/or federal action on gay marriage base their arguments off of statistics, anecdotes, religion, individualism, science, and our nation's holy book, the United States Constitution. Opponents of such action also base their arguments off of statistics, anecdotes, religion, individualism, science, and Constitution. And then, of course, there are various groups of people who do not feel that the government should be involved in marriages at all. For some, this means only allowing civil unions. For others, this means... nothing. "Not involved" means "not involved."
On a legal note, the issue has cropped up several times in the news recently. Five states- Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire- have legalized gay marriage. 31 states have defeated same-sex marriage by referendum, with a recent example being Maine in November 2009. 30 states have banned such marriages through amendments to their state constitutions, with a recent example being California in November 2008 through Proposition 8 (which was ironic as that state swung to Obama, who promised to increase gay rights, in the same election). Meanwhile, the federal government has gotten into the act. Although marriages are nowhere in the federal government's powers in the Constitution and are thus a state's right, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996. This act prohibits the federal government from recognizing gay marriage and says that states do not have to recognize another state's gay marriages.
Some of the main issues related to same-sex marriage are as follow:
Family values and morality/ethics: Many people, especially the more religious, feel that gay marriage goes against traditional family practices and religion. They worry that children cannot grow up properly without both a father and mother, and may have psychological issues, or, for the more religious, go to hell. Some of these people feel that you can pray homosexuality away, and in keeping view it as a sinful behavior which should absolutely not be accepted and passed on to the next generation. Of course, on the other side of the fence, some feel that it would be immoral to teach children that people are unequal and that tolerance of victimless activity is a virtue. Also, family values may dictate that allowing such things as gay marriage and gay adoption will encourage good family life and allow more unwanted children to have homes.
Science: From a scientific standpoint, homosexuality is involuntary and permanent. This might lean in favor of gay marriage. However, gays cannot have biological children, and since a large part of the creation of marriage and the related benefits had to do with encouraging or caring for children, this might go against gay marriage.
Economics: Same-sex couples will get more benefits, including tax benefits. Will this help or hurt the economy?
Constitutionality: OK, this is the big one. I'm dividing it up.
Federal Power: Who should decide on gay marriage, states or the federal government? This is especially pertinent to us since although marriages have been considered a states' right, we are simulating Congress and our actions will be bound accordingly. This is an example of the clash of the Elastic Clause vs. the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Equal Protection Clause: “No state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”- 14th Amendment to the Constitution
So what does this mean? Many say that this means that gay couples are being denied their rights and should be allowed to marry and adopt. Others, however, argue that there is no Constitutional right to marriage, and that technically anyone can enter into a straight marriage (you don't actually have to be straight to sign the forms), and adopt that way. Therefore, by that logic, people are already equal.
Full Faith and Credit Clause: "Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the US and it Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken."- Article 4, Section 1, US Constitution
A really general way to put this would be that state's have to recognize each other's actions, although of course there are legal nuances. This clause is a huge concern with DOMA, since it mandates that states no longer have to recognize gay marriages in another state. Do not forget this issue.
Well, here goes. Get debating, and may God, Richard Dawkins, or neither, depending on your preference, watch over you and keep this civil and well thought-out. No blind emotive statements, please.
Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_m ... ted_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union#United_States
http://www.christiananswers.net/love/st ... lity1.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/full-faith ... dit-clause
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Equal_protection
http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/lawreview ... 06_TXT.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1082190/posts
http://www.google.com/"
-------
The brief. Note: The word "gay" throughout this brief refers to the entire LGBTQ thing. It's a pain to write out over and over, and doesn't sound as snappy.
"Homosexual marriage is a highly controversial issue that has been dividing the nation for several years recently. Supporters of state and/or federal action on gay marriage base their arguments off of statistics, anecdotes, religion, individualism, science, and our nation's holy book, the United States Constitution. Opponents of such action also base their arguments off of statistics, anecdotes, religion, individualism, science, and Constitution. And then, of course, there are various groups of people who do not feel that the government should be involved in marriages at all. For some, this means only allowing civil unions. For others, this means... nothing. "Not involved" means "not involved."
On a legal note, the issue has cropped up several times in the news recently. Five states- Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire- have legalized gay marriage. 31 states have defeated same-sex marriage by referendum, with a recent example being Maine in November 2009. 30 states have banned such marriages through amendments to their state constitutions, with a recent example being California in November 2008 through Proposition 8 (which was ironic as that state swung to Obama, who promised to increase gay rights, in the same election). Meanwhile, the federal government has gotten into the act. Although marriages are nowhere in the federal government's powers in the Constitution and are thus a state's right, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996. This act prohibits the federal government from recognizing gay marriage and says that states do not have to recognize another state's gay marriages.
Some of the main issues related to same-sex marriage are as follow:
Family values and morality/ethics: Many people, especially the more religious, feel that gay marriage goes against traditional family practices and religion. They worry that children cannot grow up properly without both a father and mother, and may have psychological issues, or, for the more religious, go to hell. Some of these people feel that you can pray homosexuality away, and in keeping view it as a sinful behavior which should absolutely not be accepted and passed on to the next generation. Of course, on the other side of the fence, some feel that it would be immoral to teach children that people are unequal and that tolerance of victimless activity is a virtue. Also, family values may dictate that allowing such things as gay marriage and gay adoption will encourage good family life and allow more unwanted children to have homes.
Science: From a scientific standpoint, homosexuality is involuntary and permanent. This might lean in favor of gay marriage. However, gays cannot have biological children, and since a large part of the creation of marriage and the related benefits had to do with encouraging or caring for children, this might go against gay marriage.
Economics: Same-sex couples will get more benefits, including tax benefits. Will this help or hurt the economy?
Constitutionality: OK, this is the big one. I'm dividing it up.
Federal Power: Who should decide on gay marriage, states or the federal government? This is especially pertinent to us since although marriages have been considered a states' right, we are simulating Congress and our actions will be bound accordingly. This is an example of the clash of the Elastic Clause vs. the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Equal Protection Clause: “No state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”- 14th Amendment to the Constitution
So what does this mean? Many say that this means that gay couples are being denied their rights and should be allowed to marry and adopt. Others, however, argue that there is no Constitutional right to marriage, and that technically anyone can enter into a straight marriage (you don't actually have to be straight to sign the forms), and adopt that way. Therefore, by that logic, people are already equal.
Full Faith and Credit Clause: "Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the US and it Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken."- Article 4, Section 1, US Constitution
A really general way to put this would be that state's have to recognize each other's actions, although of course there are legal nuances. This clause is a huge concern with DOMA, since it mandates that states no longer have to recognize gay marriages in another state. Do not forget this issue.
Well, here goes. Get debating, and may God, Richard Dawkins, or neither, depending on your preference, watch over you and keep this civil and well thought-out. No blind emotive statements, please.
Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_m ... ted_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union#United_States
http://www.christiananswers.net/love/st ... lity1.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/full-faith ... dit-clause
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Equal_protection
http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/lawreview ... 06_TXT.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1082190/posts
http://www.google.com/"