Marriage Equality

Opening Statement “We, the People of the United State, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and to our Prosperity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” – The Constitution of the United States of America The Role of Government The United States Federal Government was established to promote three basic “unalienable” rights: life, liberty, and property, as seen from the text of the entire Constitution. However, the United States has had a difficult history in trying to establish and protect these basic principles. Just 143 years ago, blacks were given the right to vote, and it wasn’t until 50 years later that women were given their right to vote. The civil rights movement of the 1940s and 1950s was only 60 to 70 years ago. We are far from a perfect nation, far from being efficient, and far from being an equal nation. That holds true today. But, that doesn’t mean we take these issues lightly. Citizens in America want the opportunity to succeed, to not have to worry about discrimination and inhibiting predispositions. This is why we formed labor unions. This is why we have so many amendments regarding equality. Our 15th amendment tried to make voting an equal right, but it wasn’t clear enough, and later the 19th amendment was ratified in 1920. The past 250 years of the USA’s history exemplifies our desire to be an equal society. The role of the Federal Government is to promote the general welfare, not the welfare of certain groups over others. If we did, we wouldn’t have establish voters’ rights amendments to the Constitution, we would have a national language, we would let corporations treat workers unfairly, and we would probably have a national religion. But, we did establish voters’ rights amendments, we don’t have a national language, we do protect our workers, and we don’t have a national religion. I use “we” because we are the government. America is a country “by the people, and for the people.” [1] What is “Marriage”? This question has become a semantic focal point nation-wide. What is “marriage”? How should we define it? Why does the definition matter? What makes a “family”? Can homosexual couples be considered a legitimate relationship? If so, how? If not, why? So many questions, but the core is clear: what constitutes a “marriage”? We are at an etymological turning point for a single word that has an important meaning to both sides of the debate. Traditional values (at least, in the USA) regard the relationship between a man and a woman as the key aspect of marriage, and most dictionaries comply with this definition. However, even though the status quo definition of “marriage” is the formal union of a man and a woman, what is it in this word that demands a static definition? Why should we continue using an outdated definition that, in combination with State support, leads to blatant discrimination? Language is the most complex form of conscious interaction humans have developed over the span of our evolution. Knowing its origin is sometimes considered the “hardest problem in science.” [2] Language is not a static form of communication between humans, and it’s difficult to think of a way language can be. Words change, spelling of words change, and the popular use of different words change, quite frequently. The people, with the willpower to strive for the ideal, control what a “marriage” is, not tradition. Equality This is an equality issue. This social problem was never intended by supporters to tear down the definition of “marriage”, or even devalue the concept of a formal union between partners. The argument for marriage equality has been consistent because the warrants stand true: homosexual partners are discriminated against by the State for insufficient reason. As of right now, married couples are given 1,138 unique benefits by the State that a homosexual couple can never get in the status quo. These benefits include, but are certainly not limited to: social security, taxes, medical leave, and immigration. [3] Con must demonstrate why homosexual couples should be denied all 1,138 of these benefits granted to a heterosexual couple. Couples of the same sex are systemically oppressed due to the preconceived notion that a relationship between a man and a woman is superior to a relationship between two men or two women. Con must prove this oppression is a good thing. Personal Convictions One cannot say they approve homosexual partnerships and also wish to deny them marriage rights. It’s akin to saying they support citizen popular vote, but are willing to deny blacks or women the right to vote. It’s a clear hypocrisy. If Con concedes that being homosexual is okay, then he should also concede that the State should support their liberty. When we talk about federal support for marriage and economic benefits that entail from a formal union, it’s necessary to overcome personal convictions. It’s necessary to forget the general belief of what marriage should be. The denial of marriage rights to homosexual couples has always been founded in personal disputes over marriage. The argument that being homosexual is a choice isn’t necessarily falling out of favor because there is evidence to say otherwise (however, like most things, it’s most likely a combination of nature and nurture [4] [5] [6]). The reason it’s falling out of favor is because the argument itself is irrelevant. It only supports the religious base who want to enforce Leviticus 18:22. There is no link between the premise that it’s a choice and the conclusion that the Federal Government should restrict it. Personal convictions of others hold no merit, just as someone being on a diet has no right to proclaim others shouldn’t eat cookies.Closing StatementCon has a significant burden to show that these harms in the status quo should be continued. I will refrain from refuting any of the generic arguments against marriage rights until Con makes his case. And with that, I'll turn it over to Con. [1] http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org... [2] http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk... [3] http://www.hrc.org... [4] http://www.guardian.co.uk... [5] http://www.popsci.com... [6] http://www.apa.org...