Federalism: Gay Marriage
Where do you stand on the issue of gay marriage? What does the U.S. Constitution say about it? Explain your stance and try to back it up with constitutional arguments.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
- mbertola
- Hi everyone! My name is Mrs. Bertola and I have been teaching at WTHS for 13 years. I am currently teaching AP Government and am excited to continue our classroom discussion on Blogger.com. I live in Illinois with my husband and son--but I am originally from Wisconsin and LOVE all WI sports teams. I went to Lake Forest College and played basketball there. I coached girls b-ball for 10 years but took a break from it after my son's birth. You will learn a lot more about me as the year goes on!
Despite trying to be unbiased and open on most issues, this is one of the topics that I find myself very uncompromising on. But to really know what it is we want to talk about, we would need to define marriage which happens to be incredibly complex. But let's just say that "traditional" marriage is between one man and one woman. However, this simply isn't the case, in the bible King David was married to 18 women and King Solomon was married to 700. And even most this we associate with marriage: rings, white dresses, ceremonies, saying "I do", aren't, in fact, very traditional. Up until about the 1500's it was uncommon for marriages to happen in churches or even feature witnesses, people became married by deciding to be married and honoring that commitment (they would occasionally tell the church because that's were the record were kept). But for some, marriage is an connection with G-d, and since (according to some religions institutions)gay marriage is inherently sinful that G-d can't be a part of and bless that couple. But if we are to say that the legal benefits of marriage should only be extended to those who have made that pact with G-d then we get ourselves into a HUGE mess of trouble. For example, if two people got married in a park instead of a church, does that mean that they aren't really married? should they be able to own property together or visit each other in a hospital? Plus marriage is incredibly personal and are almost individualized to each person's case, so a simple "no gay marriage" legislation is unfair and cruel to the entirety of the American population. I think that is what marriage is, two people making a personal daily commitment to each other. And let's face it, there are going to be marriages you don't like, and there are going to be things married people do that you don't think married people should do; but whether two men are getting married, two women are getting married, or one of each are getting married, those marriages won't affect yours.
ReplyDeleteThank you.
Even though I am a liberal, I believe that this issue is immoral and incorrect, which is a conservative thought. Marriages are between a man and women, which is a traditional thought and I agree on that. But, I don't really agree on same gender marriages because it seems incorrect and immoral to me. My general opinion is that it just is not proper. The constitution also doesn't mention anything about marriages, so that decision goes to the states according to the 10th amendment concerning federalism. However, I believe that this decision should be left the people because of the 9th amendment saying that the people have certain rights that are not mentioned in the constitution and I believe this decision should be left to the individual citizen because this deals with a person's personal/social life and the government should not dictate on what should be done in this matter.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Zaabir, since the Constitution does not specify, the right of marriage should be left to the people because of the 9th Amendment. And although I personally am not gay, it doesn't mean I should be able to limit their freedoms or rights to marriage.
ReplyDeleteI personally don't believe that gay marriage is right, but I also don't believe that the government should force people not to do it. It hasn't become a big issue until recently and in the past, marriage was defined as between a man and a woman, so it wouldn't be in the Constitution. It could be interpretted through the 9th amendment that gay marriage is a right and should be allowed, but that's ultimately up to the courts to decide. Arguments could go for both sides on this controversy and I would say I'm in the middle.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe that no court or government has the right to define marriage and that this right is in the hands of the people to define but not enforce in any way. My personal opinion is that gay marriage is wrong but, that just because I or anyone else thinks it is wrong does not mean two people should not be able to be together. I believe that this is a basic human right and that neither our government, or any other government, should be able to take it away. This is up to no one to decide but the people who want to marry each other. Some people would say it is not normal for two people of the same gender to marry each other but, in reality there is no such thing as normal. Normal is just a word to describe what people are most accustomed to seeing. The only reason people even think it is wrong is because that is what they were taught or what they were accustomed to seeing. So what I am saying is that even though I do not support gay marriage, people should be able to marry who they want regardless of what anyone thinks. -David Bergquist
ReplyDeleteoh and if anyone is wondering I couldn't figure out how to change it to say my name instead of my old accounts name so I put it at the end. (and I didn't really feel like trying) D: -David Bergquist
DeleteI think that gay marriage should be legalized in everyone state, country, and nation in the world. Some people are born gay and they have no control over theor birth. No one controls the feelings they have and once you love someone, no one should be able to take that away from you. The first amendments are all about freedom, and gay people should have the same rights. People can get a sex change and then get married, but they are still the same person Why can't we just let them skip that step and let them get married? The government should have no power over love and the life you want to live if it is n it harming anyone else. I strongly support gay marriage.
ReplyDeleteI have a lot of christian friends and they've told me their views of gay rights based on their religion so I understand both sides. Religious people tend to think that marriage should stay between a man and a woman and that is how god made it with Adam and Eve. I personally agree with David that people follow what they are used to seeing and don't want to change that. What I don't understand is that religions also emphasize the importance of family. If someones child were to be gay, and they were against it, would they change their views on homosexuals and accept them, or would they change their views on the importance of family and shun them because of their sexuality? I know a few people who are either gay, lesbian, or homosexual. My opinions of them haven't changed. They are all normal, good people, and they haven't done anything wrong in my mind, so why shouldn't they have the same rights as everyone else?
ReplyDeleteThis is going to be long, so bear with me...
ReplyDeleteIssue 1: Religious-
The first amendment guarantees the right to the free practice of religion. This also logically extends to guarantee the right not to practice religion. The prohibition of something by a religion does not mean that the issue is necessarily of political validity. However, this does not prevent people from using it as an argument in political settings and debates. Usually, however is is combined with other arguments.
Issue 2: Social-
The social implications of gay marriage have a relatively smaller impact on society than is imagined.
In the social issue of the actual marriage, the most common arguments against gay marriage are that it makes the institution of marriage less respected, and that it encourages people to be homosexual. As to the respect of marriage, that ship's sailed. With the divorce rate as high as it is, marriage really isn't the commitment that it used to be. People now have begun to treat marriage casually, and to jump into it recklessly. The sanctity of marriage wasn't a huge issue to politicians when the divorce rate shot up, so why is it a huge deal now? About encouraging homosexuality: Allowing is not necessarily encouraging. To compare, the 26th amendment guarantees the right for citizens above the age of 18 to vote. In 2010, 76% of people under the age of 30 did not vote. The creation of a law does not encourage the people to take advantage of a certain right, only guarantee them that they are allowed to.
The other social issue regarding gay marriage is about children. One of the most common arguments about children in regard to gay marriage is that the child will be victims, socially or mentally, from having gay parents. In this case, it is always good to remember that gay couples can't reproduce (yeah, it seems obvious, but a lot of people seem to forget that). Any child will have to be adopted. In this case the question comes down to this: Is it better to have a child live in an orphanage or foster home, with the daily uncertainty and instability that can come with, or have an established, relatively normal lifestyle with gay parents who love both the child, and each other.
Issue 3: Political/Economic-
The question is whether gay couples should receive the government benefits that come with marriage. The proposed arguments against this have little to do with social, moral, or lawful interests. Generally it's concealed behind a wall of diction, filler, and other unrelated issues, but the basic argument is that gay couples shouldn't be married because they shouldn't get the benefits of getting married because money. Arguments against marriage benefits for gay couples generally state that the couples shouldn't get the benefits because they don't have the government status of 'marriage.' However, they state that they shouldn't have that status because that would give them the benefits of marriage when they really weren't even though they technically would be. Yeah, those arguments don't really make much sense do they? That's because they're employing circular logic that tries to support itself with itself... It doesn't really work. The benefits of marriage are inherent to marriage, and shouldn't be a factor in determining the legality of the union.
And that is why I will never understand those against the legalization of gay marriage, yet are in favor of Civil Unions.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI feel that it is unfair and unjust to define marriage between a man and a woman. I think that people are born the way they are born, and that people should accept them for who they are and not what society wants them to be. The constitution should not be able to infringe themselves on the people's personal lives such as they do within the topic of gay marriage. It gets to a certain point where I believe that the government needs to stay out of personal issues. What I don't understand is by allowing gay marriage, what is it hurting? By legalizing gay marriage the world isn't going to end, children are not going to suddenly start acting out because of new cultural regulations. What will happen is that gay people will finally be able to love who they want to love and not be ridiculed. The Constitution says that no one should be deprived of any type of civil rights...but isn't that what we are doing here by not legalizing gay marriage?
ReplyDeleteIf I were to seriously comment on this issue, the result would be a 2 hour rant. Instead, I put in some thought as to whether or not I ought to share the following statement: In the wise words of Mike Barker and Matt Weitzman, gays are "the new blacks". Virtually, I rest my case.
ReplyDelete