3

From Christianity SE. Please migrate me to Law SE if needed. Thanks.

From what I understand, the fourteenth amendment in American law is interpreted by the SCOTUS to be implying that bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional.

To me, this means, from the perspective of people who are against states allowing same-sex marriage, one of two things is true:

  1. disagreement with the fourteenth amendment

  2. agreement with the fourteenth amendment is a moral law but disagreement with interpretation

Is this right?

If so, is there a general consensus among people against states allowing same-sex marriage between which of the two is right? If there is, which? If there is none, you can go ahead and close this question.

If not, why?

To be clear, I assume that one cannot believe in the following things simultaneously:

  1. being against states allowing same-sex marriage
  2. agreeing with the fourteenth amendment
  3. agreeing with the SCOTUS' interpretation of the fourteenth amendment
  • This is probably more of a politics question than a law one, so you're in the right place. – cpast Aug 1 '15 at 18:26
  • 3
    The assumption that people can't hold beliefs that contradict each other is the logic error. People believe in contradictory things in politics all the time. – user1530 Aug 1 '15 at 18:27
  • Your first assumption is wrong -- there's a third option, which is that it may or may not violate the amendment but that it's a matter to resolve through the political process. Courts can absolutely say "whether this right is fundamental or not is not a matter for us to decide." – cpast Aug 1 '15 at 19:23
  • 1
    There's also the question of whether people vote along party lines and that kind of thing. People don't necessarily actually care about the issue at hand. – PointlessSpike Aug 4 '15 at 10:15
  • @PointlessSpike ? – Red Rackham Aug 4 '15 at 19:47
4

In discussions with individuals that are opposed to Same-Sex marriage, the typical argument raised in objection to the Equal Protections Clause is that Same Sex marriages is beyond the scope of the 14th Amendment. The premise of this argument is that the 14th Amendment deals solely with the rights that had been denied to the formal enslaved persons, and ensuring that they are now treated fairly. From here, the claim is that the Supreme Court committed an overreach of their Constitutional authority, constituting attempts at creating legislation.

Links to articles and websites making this claim, if via suspect scholarship, or referencing it:
Original Intent
Fox and Friends
The Atlantic

  • Do you have an article or report to help support your answer? Many thanks – Red Rackham Dec 30 '15 at 20:13
-1

This is an interesting topic. I being those you speak about, against same sex marriage, but I for Civil Unions.

So lets talk about why I believe in this stance from a Christian perspective and constitutional one.

From a Christian standpoint:

  1. I believe the TERM Marriage was created by God and that term and definition has also been defined by God as between 1 man and 1 woman.
  2. As a Christian, I believe that the Government is trying to redefine the term Marriage. That term again being created by God and not by Man.
  3. In the laws of today, the Government has created laws that benefit those that are under the legal term of Marriage. That same term that was created by God, not Government.
  4. When Government writes laws that describe the benefits of Marriage, they should also describe Civil Unions and the laws that benefit Civil Unions. The Government chose not to write laws or create new laws for Civil Unions. They chose to describe Civil Unions and Marriage under the same term. Marriage, which that same term being created and defined by God.
  5. Marriage was just redefined by Government, that is exactly the reason Christians are in upheaval. Marriage, the term it self is a Christian and Godly defined Term.

Constitutional:

  1. The 14th amendment requires equal protection under the law.
  2. I get it, the same sex Civil Unions want the same protection that Marriage provides opposite sexes.
  3. If we wanted to take the longer route, all the laws in the country that describe the benefits of a Marriage, should also include the term Civil Unions. Civil Unions describing Same Sex.
  4. To include the term Civil Unions and Marriage in all laws from the past and moving forward, would have made this argument much more easier to bear from a Christian Standpoint.
  5. It would have also afforded Equal Protection under the law.

I hope that defines what your looking for.

My personal standpoint as a Christian, I believe Marriage should be between a man and a woman. I believe Civil Unions should afford the EXACT same laws as Marriage. I believe the Government should not Define the term Marriage, but is allowed to create a new term and call it a Civil Union.

  • 5
    Just to clarify, you believe that the Christian god created the english word marriage? What about the German word Ehe? Or Japanese 結婚? I'm just having a hard time understanding your first point when the concept of marriage exists outside of Christendom and the english-speaking world. Why should Christianity have the authority to dictate how we define a word that describes a concept not unique to Christianity? – Waxen Nov 4 '15 at 17:53
  • 1
    Where does the concept of Marriage come from? When I say word Marriage, I also mean the concept of as well. – SpoiledTechie.com Nov 4 '15 at 22:00
  • 2
    @Waxen many religions require an individual have the belief that their religion is the right one. :/ – user1530 Nov 5 '15 at 2:04
  • Require? No. No belief is required. The very definition of the word belief isn't required. – SpoiledTechie.com Nov 5 '15 at 3:13
  • @Waxen I tagged you – Red Rackham Dec 30 '15 at 20:12

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.