Homosexuals have a right to marriage.

My position is that marriage is a privilege, not a right. 1. Equal Application & Marriage My opponent said "our constitution allows every citizen that has not broken the law the same opportunities". This is part of the 14th amendment and it's known as the equal protection clause. "The equal protection clause is not intended to provide 'equality' among individuals or classes, but only 'equal application' of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. [1]" In the application of the traditional marriage laws they do not discriminate because everyone can marry one person of the opposite sex. This shows Tradional Marriage laws fulfill the first part of the equal protection clause. However, this would also be true of interracial marriages too, since everyone could marry one person of the same race. This is why the Supreme Court has certain testing. "Traditionally, the Court finds a state classification constitutional if it has 'a rational basis' to a 'legitimate state purpose. ' The Supreme Court, however, has applied more stringent analysis in certain cases. It will 'strictly scrutinize' a distinction when it embodies a 'suspect classification. ' In order for a classification to be subject to strict scrutiny, it must be shown that the state law or its administration is meant to discriminate" [1]. These will be discussed in the points below. 2. Legitimate State Purpose Is there a purpose to define marriage between one man and one woman. If there isn't, then the law would violate the equal protection clause and be unconstitutional. However, there is a legitimate state purpose in traditional marriage laws. [2]. First, traditional marriage promotes responsible procreation. "A core purpose of marriage is to guarantee that, insofar as possible, each child is emotionally, morally, practically, and legally affiliated with the woman and the man whose sexual union brought the child into the world. " [2] This shows that marriage is about procreation. This why the government regulates it. "'[S]ex makes babies, society needs babies, and children need mothers and fathers. ' Connecting sex, babies, and moms and dads is the social function of marriage and helps explain why the government rightly recognizes and addresses this aspect of our social lives. " [2] Second, children do best when raised by their biological parents, which is promoted by traditional marriage laws. [3]. Third, it preserves the institution of marriage. "Sweden began offering same-sex couples benefits in 1987, followed by Denmark in 1989 and Norway in 1993. According to a Feb. 29, 2004 report by Stanley Kurtz, PhD, from 1990 to 2000, Norway's out-of-wedlock birthrate rose from 39% to 50% and Sweden's rose from 47% to 55%. Unmarried parenthood in Denmark rose 25% during the 1990s, and approximately 60% of first born Danish children have unmarried parents. As Kurtz states, 'Marriage is slowly dying in Scandinavia. '" [4]. These three points show there is a legitimate state purpose. This is unlike what opponents interracial marriage had. In Loving v. Virginia, the case that struck down interracial marriage bans, the state argued "the scientific evidence is substantially in doubt and, consequently, this Court should defer to the wisdom of the state legislature in adopting its policy of discouraging interracial marriages" [5]. This means traditional marriage passes the second test of the equal protection clause. 3. Purpose of Tradional Marriage Laws This brings us to the last point about the purpose of the laws. If the laws were made purposely to discriminate, then they are unconstitutional. "May 17, 2004: Massachusetts becomes the first state in the United States to allow same-sex couples to share in the freedom to marry" [6]. This means laws defining marriage between one man and one woman must have been there since the beginning of marriage laws. Which it is highly unlikely they created the marriage laws to discriminate. However, if it was meant to discriminate that means we have a suspect classification which is gender. It is not a sexual preference because the marriage laws are neutral on their face, because marriage licenses do not inquire as to a person's sexual preference, it matters on the gender of those involved. "Usually, if a purpose to discriminate is found the classification will be strictly scrutinized if it is based on race, national origin, or, in some situations, non U. S. citizenship (the suspect classes). In order for a classification to be found permissible under this test it must be proven, by the state, that there is a compelling interest to the law and that the classification is necessary to further that interest" [1]. Although, "The Supreme Court also requires states to show more than a rational basis (though it does not apply the strictly scrutiny test) for classifications based on gender or a child's status as illegitimate" [1] I will still use the strictly scrutiny test. If homosexuals would marry it would prohibit all the state's interest listed in the previous points. Firstly, homosexuals cannot procreate with each other. Second, homosexuals cannot both be the biological parents of the children. Third, it would remove marriages link with procreation, which undermines the institution of marriage. This means even if it were to discriminate it passes the test, that makes it legitimate. Concluding, traditional marriage laws pass the third and final equal protection test; therefore, traditional marriage laws are constitutional showing there is no right for homosexuals to marry. I look forward to my opponent's response. Sources [1] . http://www.law.cornell.edu... [2] . http://www.scribd.com... [3] . http://www.familystructurestudies.com... [4] . http://www.weeklystandard.com... [5] . http://www.law.cornell.edu... [6] . http://www.freedomtomarry.org...