Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

Now, straight to the issues. 1. My opponent says that Prop 8 does not withstand the rational basis review because classifying people based on sexual orientation and discriminating against them without cause is not reasonable. However, as addressed by myself above, my opponent has not provided any legal basis whatsoever to support any claim that rational basis review is required in the present case at all. He has not referred to any legal principle to outlines the circumstances in which rational basis review is to be applied. 2. My opponent says that Prop 8 does not survive strict scrutiny review because it does not advance a compelling government interest while denying people a fundamental right. Again, he has not provided ANY LEGAL BASIS for claiming that strict scrutiny review applies in a situation such as this. He is tossing legal terms around without demonstrating that they are legally applicable in a case such as this. 3. My opponent NOW cites Judge Walker to support the above propositions. He does that in the final round of the debate. However, there are two problems with this. Firstly, Judge Walker's decision in P v Schwazenegger has been stayed (by Judge Walker himself! ) pending appeal and therefore does not represent applicable law at this point. Secondly, Prop 8 does not deny anyone any fundamental right. If marriage is indeed a fundamental right (as my opponent claims), then Proposition 8 certainly allows every person to get married. Proposition 8 simply defines marriage to be a union between one human and another human, who must be of different genders. Whether you are straight or gay, Mexican of Swedish, male or female, you can get married. Proposition 8 does not affect that right. 2. C1: Unneccessary harm to a vulnerable minority group. a. My opponent claims that he has demosntrated that Prop 8 denies a fundamental right to a suspect class without a rational justification. Firstly, he hasn't. He has not demonstrated either that homosexuals are legally a suspect class. He hasn't even defined what a suspect class is in law! Secondly, he hasn't overcome my argument that Prop 8 treats everyone equally. Thirdly, he hasn't demonstrated any legal principle that prohibits depriving a suspect class of a fundamental right. He has not addressed my argument that the two Clauses of the Constitution protect INDIVIDUALS and not classes. In short, he has done nothing to support his claim. He has left the readers to go and research the law for themselves. Well, that's not how a debate works. It can't. Law, facts, apply law to facts. b. The wording of the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause is clear. Every person is to have equal protection under the law. And Prop 8 does exactly that. Every person can get married. Sure, a paedofile can't marry a child. And a beastialist can't marry an animal. Those things are illegal. And also, a person (gay OR straight) can't marry a member of the same sex. That's because marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. But each of those individuals can get married. There's no breach of the Clauses. My opponent has demonstrated nothing to the contrary. 3. C2&3 - Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause My opponent now claims that he pointed out in the first round that marriage is a fundamental right. He NOW (in the last round) makes a reference to Moore v East Cleveland where the Court said "Freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process…. " But what was the context of Moore's case? Well, the question was about the constitutionality of a law that prohibited nuclear families from residing together. The case had nothing to do with the right to choose to change the millennia-old meaning of the word "marriage". In fact, the case went on to say this: "Of course, the family is not beyond regulation. See Prince v. Massachusetts, supra, at 166. But when the government intrudes on choices concerning family *living arrangements*, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation. " The case WAS NOT ON POINT! (emphasis is mine) And where did the Court get this from? It got it from another case. It cited the case of Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U. S. 632, 639 -640 (1974). Was THAT case about the freedom to change the meaning of the word "marriage"? No. That case was about mandatory maternity leave. Pregnant women being forced to leave work. It had NOTHING TO DO with marriage. Is this a line of cases then that's even close to the issue? No. And my opponent has not demonstrated otherwise. He is what we call "quote mining". He picks a sentence that's NOT ON POINT and attempts to make it look like binding law. And yet, it was obiter and out of context. My opponent also attempts to rely on Loving v Virginia. Again, this was a case decided by a Court that spoke of marriage within the context of its ordinary meaning: opposite sex. But I go further. Did my opponent cite anything from that case that relates to a right to choose? No. He merely cited a statement that everyone has a right to marry. Well sure, everyone does have that right. And Prop 8 does not take that right away. My opponent then makes reference to his aunt who can't marry her lesbian partner. He says that this is a breach of the Constitution because it deprives her of her fundamental right to choose the person she will marry. But yet again, my opponent has failed to show any legal principle whatsoever that there exists a Constitutional right to marry any person whatsoever. He has not showed us that either of the two Clauses guarantees a person the right to marry any person whatsoever that they please. And even if that were the case, Prop 8 does not prohibit that. Prop 8 merely defines the word marriage the same way it has always been defined. What HAS my opponent showed? Two legal propositions: 1. That everyone has a right to marry (Loving v Virignia). Prop 8 does not get in the way of this. 2. That "choice in matters of marriage and family life is a fundamental right" (Moore's case). Moore's case seems tempting here, I agree. But as pointed out above, it was decided by judges who understood "marriage" to mean "union between opposite sex" and "family" to not include units formed by members of the same sex. What's more, Moore's case was NOT ON POINT AT ALL. It was about a prohibition against nuclear families residing together. Anything it DID say about marriage itself (even within the constraints of the actual meaning of the word) was said as Obiter Dictum (not law, just comment). Conclusion My opponent concludes that he's disappointed. Well, so am I. He has not presented any relevant legal principles that would give grounds to a constitutional challenge. And tell you what, there are plenty. You see, I'm not against gay marriage. In fact, I myself think that it's probably unconstitutional. But in order to demonstrate this, you have to present RELEVANT LAW and then apply it to the facts. My opponent has not done that. He has not showed that Prop 8 breaches either of the two Clauses. He has not showed that the Clauses are capable of protecting a "suspect class" OR that homosexuals are legally a suspect class or even what "suspect class" means in law OR that the right to choose any person (of either sex) as one's spouse is a right recognised by American Constitutional Law. In light of this I urge you to vote Con. Thank you for the debate.