Should gay marriage be subject to state or national referendums?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Should gay marriage be subject to state or national referendums?


http://www.rekindle.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/art-gay-420x0.jpg


In the recent national referendum in the Irish Republic which passed gay marriage, such a vote was held due to the fact that the constitution of Ireland insists on referendums to pass such controversial or divisive measures which may inflict on the constitution itself. It was however, the first time in history that a country had legalised gay marriage via a public vote with most state ballots in the United States rejecting the legalisation of gay marriages. In other words, the only reason why gay marriage is legal in many US state is due to constitutional arguments or due to each state Congress and Senate passing such legislation.

But it is right to subject such an issue to the ballot box? Proponents of gay marriage will argue, as they are in the United States now, that gay marriage is a right and should be implemented by the courts due to America being a constitutional republic and not a democracy. Opponents argue that this is undemocratic, and is placing too much political power in the hands of uneleced judges rather than the public themselves. Those opposing gay marriage argue that in the many cases of gay marriage being defeated at the polling booth, proponents have simply ignored the result and sought to legalise it anyway using the courts.

What is the best solution then, and where do you stand on the issue as a whole and why?


There are plenty of nifty prizes to be won within this forum and we have some new awards and prizes to be won in this forum and beyond. Focus on putting a good argument forward, try to be controversial and you'll be rewarded!

The debate is open to you.

[FlyingJesus]

I personally view all referenda as pointless wastes of money. The entire point of elective representation is to ELECT REPRESENTATIVES, and calling for a referendum on everything completely undermines not only their roles on a personal level but their entire office

[Chippiewill]

Opponents argue that this is undemocratic, and is placing too much political power in the hands of uneleced judges

Not so much a problem in the US, in some states they elect their judges.

[Matt]

Not sure if this even answers the question/topic but i'll have a go anyway lmao

At the moment in Australia, Tony Abbott is saying no to same sex marriage because he doesn't think it's right (even though his sister is a lesbian). I'd be interested to see if Australians were actually given the chance to vote, what the outcome would be. Tony Abbott is a complete goose and it's only a matter of time before a new PM gets elected and gay marriage will be legalised. I think more and more people are beginning to support it (slowly) and I know that the Ireland referendum put a lot of pressure on Abbott to comment on the same sex marriage debate in the hopes that he'd maybe change his mind or hint towards a referendum, but then he just shut it down again. I think it should be up to the people to vote. Why should it be illegal just because a Prime Minister doesn't agree with it?????

[GommeInc]

A referendum should be for something that is uncertain, important and deeply constitutional. Gay marriage is neither of these and should just be allowed because marriage isn't important, is certain and isn't/shouldn't be constitutional.

Putting it to a national vote is just giving people with simple, selfish minds a means to put their dodgy opinions to use without really considering what marriage is and has been for decades. The "NO" campaign for the Irish vote was littered with falsities that society will crumble, how it is unnatural and bringing the adoption debate in which for the purposes of the vote is unnecessary and almost entirely irrelevant. Marriage has and always will be a contract between two people to ensure either or both have certain rights and is a formal declaration of your dedication, loyalty and love for each other. If one dies, the surviving partner should have rights to what you own and what slice of your life you made together. It isn't necessarily about physical, sexual love but emotional love.

The bit about unelected judges is a bit nonsensical in the UK as judges here are pretty damn good at protecting people that ought to be protected. Our law of equity is incredibly impressive and has protected unmarried couples from the selfish or unjustified law created by elected politicians who may have missed out on a change of society in the creation of the law or simply wrote the legislation poorly in the first place.

For example, the House of Lords (now Supreme Court) have interpreted the Housing Act 1980 that unmarried couples cohabiting together "as if like a husband and wife" deserve special protection. It's where you get cases like Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd.