Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

It would seem as though some headway has been made; however, my opponent has set out a few red herrings in his last round that need to be addressed. I am not, for instance, arguing from my gut instinct that "[gay marriage bans] are unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional". Nor have I argued that there is a "reasonableness clause" in the U. S. constitution. I am utilizing the exact same line of reasoning and legal precedents that were used to undo the anti-miscegenation laws of the 20th century. Proposition 8 does not withstand rational basis review, since classifying people based on sexual orientation and discriminating against them without cause is not reasonable. Moreover, it also doesn't survive strict scrutiny review because it does not advance a compelling government interest while denying people of a fundamental right. In the words of Honorable Judge Vaughn Walker, "When legislation burdens the exercise of a right deemed to be fundamental, the government must show that the intrusion withstands strict scrutiny. " [1] And when either strict scrutiny or rational basis scrutiny is applied to Proposition 8, it becomes very clear that this law violates the federal constitution of the United States. C1: Proposition 8 unnecessarily harms a vulnerable minority group. In this section, my rival claims that I "[have] failed to demonstrate that there's any Constitutional prohibition against harming a minority group. " Well, I didn't set out to prove that. I have, however, demonstrated Proposition 8 denies a fundamental right to a suspect class and harms them in the process without a rational justification. He also says that the history of discrimination against gays I have outlined is not relevant, but this is clearly not true. The evidence I have offered helps demonstrate why gay people belong to a suspect class that is vulnerable. Additionally, my challenger claims that I "[have] not mentioned a single legal principle that would extend the Due Process Clause or the Equal Protection Clause to apply to groups of individuals. Each clause, on its face, protects THE INDIVIDUAL. " The Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause protects everyone by their very nature. And these two clauses were invoked to end anti-miscegenation laws that affected everyone. My opponent, it would seem, has imagined a problem that doesn't even exist. On a side note, it is not necessary for me to determine whether or not various unconventional forms of "marriage" are constitutional. If my opponent (or anyone else for that matter) wants to marry and have intercourse with an animal, then they should find a lawyer and begin compiling their legal arguments that would allow this to occur. A suitable court can review each new case one at a time if they so desire. C2: Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As I've pointed out in my first round, marriage is a fundamental right as indicated by the Supreme Court. In particular, the Supreme Court has found that, "[F]reedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. " (Moore v. East Cleveland [2]) Similarly, the court has ruled that, "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. " (Loving v. Virginia [3]) Any law that hinders this fundemental right for a suspect class is subject to rational basis scrutiny. Accordingly, it should be obvious that Proposition 8 can only be constitutional if it survives rational basis review. However, Proposition 8 does not survive rational basis scrutiny. There simply is no good reason to arbitrarily inhibit the fundamental right of homosexuals to marry the consenting person of their choice. There is no such thing as the right to "straight marriage" and the right to "gay marriage" because there is no such thing as the "man" role in marriage and the "woman" role in marriage. There is only the right to marriage (and the irrational boundaries that inhibit this fundamental right). As far as the government is concerned, the conjugal roles of a man and woman are completely indistinguishable from one another. There is not any set of rights, responsibilities or obligations in marriage that can be undertaken by a straight couple which could not be undertaken by a gay couple. Given these facts, marriage can be understood as the union of equals under the law. [4] As such, Proposition 8 doesn't provide equal protection under the law since it denies the fundamental right to marriage to gay people without a rational justification. Therefore, Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to treat the gay citizens of California equally in issuing marriage licenses. C3: Proposition 8 violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Yet again, my opponent has decided to argue that Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional because gay people have the right to marry someone of the opposite gender. Now, I shouldn't have to point out how absurd this argument is, but I'm still going to. My aunt can't marry her partner under Proposition 8 simply because she is gay. Not only this, she can't marry her partner because she is a woman. I'll prove it to you. If my aunt was a man, she could marry her partner. My aunt's male next door neighbor can marry my aunt's partner, but my aunt cannot. As a result, Proposition 8 prevents her from enjoying due process under the law by impeding her fundamental right to marry the person of her choice. Thus, Proposition 8 not only discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, it also discriminates on the basis of gender. Because Proposition 8 unreasonably prevents California from upholding fundamental rights based on sexual orientation and gender, it violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. ::Conclusion:: I'm disappointed to indicate that my challenger has failed to grapple with the arguments I have presented. There is simply no rational basis for Proposition 8, and no legitimate government interest is being furthered by preventing gay people from being married. When I challenged my opponent to demonstrate how Proposition 8 survives rational basis scrutiny or strict scrutiny, he merely seemed to suggest that he doesn't even have to. He has, however, offered slippery slope fallacies, appeals to tradition, straw man arguments, non sequiturs and has generally ignored much of my case. Indeed, my opponent claims that I haven't even made a proper case yet, which is a claim I find to be truly incredible. I have proven everything I have set out to prove (and everything I have needed to prove). Marriage is a fundamental right as indicated by numerous Supreme Court rulings. Moreover, it is a fundamental right that is being unnecessarily and irrationally denied to gay people by Proposition 8 because of their sexual orientation and gender. For these reasons, Proposition 8 is in violation of the federal constitution. Sources: 1. Walker, Vaughn R. "Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document708. " American Foundation for Equal Rights. Web. 6 Nov. 2010. . http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org.... pp. 109 - 110 2. FindLaw - For Legal Professionals. Web. 6 Nov. 2010. . http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com.... 3. FindLaw - For Legal Professionals. Web. 6 Nov. 2010. . http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com.... 4. Walker, Vaughn R. "Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document708. " American Foundation for Equal Rights. Web. 6 Nov. 2010. . http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org.... pp. 114 - 115