I want you guys to put yourself in the position of a Supreme Court Justice who must interpet the Constitution regarding this issue and make a decision. Keep in mind that this is not about whether you personally agree or disagree with same-sex marriage. It is a question of law and how this matter is best decided under our Constitution. The matter to be addressed in this case is whose rights should take precedence: the rights of states and the majority will of their citizens, or the rights of individuals? For whichever position you take, it must be supported by your interpretation of the constitution. For example, if you argue on the side of the states that have banned same-sex marriage, then your rationale should include an explanation for why you believe the 10th Amendment right of the states should take precedence over the individual right to equal treatment under the law conferred by the 14th Amendment. On the other hand, if you argue for the right of same-sex marriages, then you should include in your rationale an explanation for why the individual rights conferred by the 14th Amendment should take precedence over the 10th amendment right of the states (and the people of those states) to decide who is allowed to marry there. Feel free to cite other parts of the constitution if you believe they apply
Most Helpful Girl
Welp, I just spent the past school year as part of a class that was basically debate/argumentation based specifically on the constitution, so this should be fun.
I absolutely believe that bans on same sex marriage are unconstitutional. The constitution's relevance in the case of marriage equality has already been established in Loving v. Virginia (1967) which determined that banning interracial marriage was unconstitutional. So obviously the state's rights/reach of the constitution argument has already been settled in regards to marriage.
That leaves only the issue of whether same-sex marriage rights are worth the same protection as interracial marriage rights under the constitution. In Loving v. Virginia, it was determined that banning interracial marriage violated the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the fourteenth amendment. Despite race and sexuality being different issues, I believe LGBTQ+ individuals have just as much right to equal protection as anyone else, so I see no reason why same-sex marriage bans would be constitutional when interracial ones are not. Plus, I also think that one could make the argument that banning same sex marriage is gender discrimination as well, as the limitations on who can marry whom are specifically gendered, so there's that as well.
So essentially, I see no reason why same-sex marriage bans would be constitutional.3