ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • Social Issues

Is Gay Marriage Protected by the US Constitution?

Updated on December 19, 2014

The big debate sweeping the nation today is “Is gay marriage protected by the US Constitution?” Many gay rights activists are striving to make gay marriage legal, but there is a huge amount of evidence against the thinking that same sex marriage should be legal. Many government officials are not on board, there are Acts that are against it, and the Constitution does not say it is right.

Government officials like Barrack Obama are reluctant to be on the “gay’s” side. When some of them interviewed him, he would not say that he supported gay marriage, he would only say that he pushed for a civil union for same-sexes. President Obama is obviously not for the protection of gay marriage.

President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act in his term. It stated that marriage is a “legal union between one man and one woman.” Clearly, the Act did not say marriage is a “legal union between one man and one man.” Nor did it say marriage is a “legal union between one woman and one woman.” It has to be the opposite sex. President Clinton is another government official who is against the idea of marriage between the same sex.

Gay marriage is not protected by the US Constitution. There is nothing in there that says marriage can be between the same sex if you want it to. You might think that since a law was past stating that it is legal for there to be interracial marriage that it is okay for same sex marriage to happen, but it is not. The Constitution compels governments to be blind to race, not sex. If it wanted for governments to be blind to sex, then there would be no need for the women’s rights law to be passed. The Constitution does not protect same sex marriage.

Many people think it should be legal for a man to marry a man and the same with a woman, but there is little evidence to back these claims. So many people like it the way it is with opposite sex marriage. This is obviously including our Founding Fathers who wrote the US Constitution and so many of our own high ranking government officials. It is clear that same sex marriage should be outlawed, for good!

Please keep in mind that the Constitution can be interpreted in many ways and there are many different opinions on it. This is just one of them. Please comment only if you intend on being in support or in polite opposition. Thanks!

Is gay marriage supported by the Constitution?

See results


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • jlpark profile image

      Jacqui 4 years ago from New Zealand

      I respect his opinion. I do not need to agree with it to respect it.

      He then included religious aspects as if that made it clearer - obviously unaware that the Constitution also speaks of a Separation of Church and State - so religion has NOTHING to do with what should and shouldn't be covered by the Constitution.

      Marriage itself was not defined as solely a man and a woman by the constitution obviously, or you would not need to have had DOMA inacted. So, an amendment redefining marriage has already happened. It used to be that a woman was property, so therefore would not have been written into the Consitution - because it would be considered to be acknowledging that the woman should have rights.

      Ravenbiker - The title you suggest would be an oxymoron - see DOMA part above.

      All of you:

      The only thing to remember is you are speaking about the rights of HUMANS. Not things, HUMANs. Just like you. So, if you can be flippant about the inclusion of changes being a disgrace, you are remiss to think it couldn't be changed to TAKE away your rights one day....all on a ballot. Think about something....say.....gun regulation - if the country has it's say - your right to bear arms will be stripped and a constitution changed......easy as. So, think about the rights you are quite happy in denying, and then think about the ones you could lose....would you like it? No.

    • RavenBiker profile image

      RavenBiker 4 years ago from Pittsburgh, PA.

      Yeah, right, jackjackkiwi. Respect his opinion. This "opinion" is a moot point at best. A better hub would have been how a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage would be a disgrace.

    • jackjackkiwi profile image

      jackjackkiwi 4 years ago from Charlotte

      I think we are arguing different matters here. The main claim is "Gay marriage is not protected by the US Constitution" in his article. He is not arguing whether it is right, nor is he arguing whether the US government should allow/support it. He is simply stating that the US constitution does not support it. Whether you agree or not, you have to respect his opinion because he is just disputing if the DOCUMENT PROTECTS it.

    • jlpark profile image

      Jacqui 4 years ago from New Zealand

      Thats fine. Except, Paul wrote that part - Not God. It makes sense to write it too, if you look at the history. Paul was trying to encourage people to Christianity from a faith system OLDER than Christianity - Paganism. So, what better way to do that than denounce some of the more...pleasurable....practices of the other religion?

      I'm not asking you to change your religion. But why, in a country that prides itself on FREEDOM, do you wish to deny that to others?

      You have mixed up one thing though - one of your amendments is to do with FREEDOM OF RELIGION. And, one of your key tenets to government is the SEPARATION of Church and State.

      Therefore, there should be no correlation between your Religious Beliefs, and the RIGHTS of other people as decided by your Government. The people of America have the right to NOT be Christian, and the right to NOT be governed by those beliefs - PARTICULARLY in their Federal Government.

      Or did you just happen to accidentally skip that part? You are welcome to be Christian, but your beliefs should have NOTHING to do with the beliefs entitled to others, nor the rights entitled to others.

      You do not have to promote them, nor do you have to agree with them - but you have no right to deny them to anyone.

    • ajsellers1226 profile image

      ajsellers1226 4 years ago

      Most things need to stay the same. Everything changes, everything the US and its citizens stand for falls apart. If we doubt this rule why not doubt every single amendment in the constitution?

      I am a Christian and I agree with God and His Word.

      Romans 1:26-27

      26 For this reason wGod gave them up to xdishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, ymen committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

      A little change is good, but change that goes against my religion, I will never agree with or promote. As a Christian, I am immovable in this matter.

    • jlpark profile image

      Jacqui 4 years ago from New Zealand

      From what I recall, the US constitution does and can change at times. I think that when it was written it was PERFECTLY okay to have a black person as a slave.

      Is that okay now? No. Has it been changed to reflect that? Yes.

      I'm sure your Founding Fathers were in the process of progression of their people...not stagnation.....or if you mean "outlaw" as in "to make illegal" - I'm sure the Founding Fathers would rather you move FORWARD, rather than BACKWARDS. We are so far past outlawing people for their sexuality.

      And from the American law I do know - 1st Amendment rights, 2nd Amendment rights, etc. Do you understand the meaning of Amendment??? - CHANGE to something.

      Without change, you wouldn't have many of the laws you have now protecting your rights. So why stop change? Are you afraid of us?

      (BTW - not American, so your constitution doesn't give me anything anyway - thankfully NZ is a little more forward thinking)

    • profile image

      Mtbailz 4 years ago

      “Our nation’s permanent mission is to form a ‘more perfect union’ — deepening the meaning of freedom, broadening the reach of opportunity, strengthening the bonds of community,” Clinton said. “That mission has inspired and empowered us to extend rights to people previously denied them. Every time we have done that, it has strengthened our nation. Now we should do it again, in New York, with marriage equality. For more than a century, our Statue of Liberty has welcomed all kinds of people from all over the world yearning to be free. In the 21st century, I believe New York’s welcome must include marriage equality.”

      “I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.” - May 9, 2012, Obama, as president, in an interview with Robin Roberts of ABC News.

      Both Clinton and Obama are for marriage equality.