homosexual marriages should be legalised!!!

According to the resolution, this debate concerns the legal right for homosexuals to marry. My argument is not from a moral standpoint, but rather a legal one. *************************** There are two considerations that concern whether or not to apply a strict scrutiny standard to the question of whether or not lack of a legal right for an individual to marry and individual of the same sex constitutes an abrogation of one's fundamental rights. 1. Are homosexuals a protected class? 2. Is the right to marry a fundamental right? Let us examine the two considerations... On the Status of Homosexuality as a Protected Class. There is no immutable characteristic about homosexuals that separates them as a protected political class in the same way that people can be separated on basis of race, gender, or ethnicity. Furthermore, the supreme court case Lawrence v Texas did not establish homosexuals as a protected class when considering a specific challenge to a law regarding homosexual sodomy. Had the court seen a need to establish a protected class, it certainly could have. On the Right to Marry. Homosexuals already have a right to marry. It simply happens that the state has placed a restriction on who they can marry. This is the same as the restrictions the state places on the ability of fertile first cousins or twelve-year-olds to marry. Failing these two considerations, the state does not have to pass a strict scrutiny test, but rather simply a rational relation test. The state generally contends that there would be negative effects to a family's children wherein it was the "norm" for the family unit to consist of same-sex parents. These sort of negative effects would be centered around the lack of a balance between mother and father figures in a child's life - the sort of balance that would be necessary to function in a world where that balance prepares them for the vast amount of their social and professional interactions. Thus, the question becomes, "Is a regulation on same-sex marriage rationally related to protecting the stability of children's upbringing?" The answer to this is obviously "yes." The simple fact that the answer is yes, regardless of whether or not there may be another way to achieve the same end indicates that the state has satisfied the requirement for showing that there is a rational relation to a compelling government interest (children's mental stability) in their restriction on same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses. ****************************************** Furthermore, marriage is generally defined as a union between a man and a woman ("the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc." - Dictionary.com). Thus, according to the definition of marriage, homosexuals cannot get married, thus negating the resolution. ****************************************** Also, for the record, since there are fools on this site who vote without reading debates, I'd like to note that I am not opposed to Gay Marriage. The Moot Court resolution this year concerns the concept and I need to come up with a somewhat plausible argument against it...