The State (the goverment) has no compellig reason to legalize SSM.

Rebuttals:R1: SSM is constitutional My opponent to start of his argument falsely links banning SSM to banning interracial marriage. My opponent needs to know why we ban SSM. I already addressed this last round. The reason the state prohibits SSM is because of procreative type relationships. In Massachusetts the courts ruled the primary purpose of marriage in the states eyes is procreation. [1] My opponents argument is fairly odd, the reason SSM is banned in the governments view is because they are not in procreative type unions. A interracial couple can form these relationships, the reason they where prohibited is because the lawmakers in those areas where totally racist. So, race can fulfill the state interest of procreative-type relationships, whereas homosexual couples cannot. So, the reasons the two where banned is incomparable, apples-oranges scenario. So, race =/= nature as homosexuals will NEVER be able to fulfill the states interest. Then my opponent includes the pursuit of happiness. My arguments counter this as this debate is about the Government's views on marriage. So this doesn't relate. But this argument also implies that marriage is about love and happiness, well not in the states eyes it's not. The most heavy weight reason the state is in marriage is because of procreation. [2] Washington's state courts also held that the reason the state has interest in marriage is due to procreation and child rearing. [2] The ninth circuit federal courts also denied gay marriage as they will never produce offspring. [2, 3] In Vermont the states argument for banning SSM was they wanted to ensure the link of marriage and procreation. [2, 4] My opponents argument here actually relies on the fact that marriage is about love and happiness, but as this debate is only about the state then his argument is fully false. My opponent now argues it violates the 5th amendment. "The Fifth Amendment (Amendment V) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure." [5]Banning SSM does not in any way shape or form violate this. They still get the same procedure, they murder him they get a trial. They get habeus corpus etc. It only violates this clause if the state deprives them a right. [6] The argument on your side is the racial comparison. As I have stated that is like comparing apples and oranges. Also before we can claim it violates the law, we first must have what marriage is, and what the states interests are. [6] To actually make SSM violate the 5th amendment we have to actually change the legal definition of marriage. [6, 7] Also the argument fails as it assumes any distinction is actually discrimination. [6] If this was true then then bestiality would be unconstitutional and be legalized, yet would you argue the same on their grounds? NO! It would also mean incestuous marriage would be allowed, would you argue here? Therefore an SSM ban does not violate this clause. R2: Would help the goverment economicallyMy opponent states a normal economic argument, not one about the state, he must prove this benefits the state before it is a valid argument. My refutation will prove it would actually harm the state:All marriages get governmental and tax benefits. The governmental benefits include social security, medicare, and disability benefits. [8] The tax benefits include filling a joint tax return, and being able to divide a tax between family members. So what you owe is divided by how many people live in your house. This may seem good, but if we allow more people to get married then more people will be on entitlement reforms (S.S. Medicare) and more people paying less taxes (divided by amount of family members). This would raise goverment debts and lead to higher taxes and more doubt which never is good for the economy. Allowing SSM would increase entitlement spending. [9] As it would raise deficits which woudl create doubts, and when deficits rise the states first reaction is to raise taxes, then it would in turn actually hurt the government and the economy. A NY lawmaker claims that allowing SSM will harm NY's budget, if it harms their single state then it harms the whole union is allowed too. [10]Conclusion:I have refuted his case, and my argument prove the state has no compelling reason to allow SSM. His case sometimes doesn't even relate to the state. He has 60% of the BOP, he agreed to that, and he has no fulfilled it. My opponent has to do this:1. What is marriage exactly?2. Why should the state allow SSM? We both have different views on 1, and that part is based off of what laws, and in the states eyes as I have proven it is man + women, he basically just says opposite, but still he answers it. But 2 is where it gets tough, why should the state allow it? He has provided no compelling reason to allow SSM from the states perspective, whereas I have proven their interests lie in procreation. Therefore I urge a PRO vote. -Side noteI ask Voters to vote based off of reliability of our sources and not the quality. Mine come from credible schools of thought. ( Harvard avia maria law one of them is also Princeton) I would like to point out his 2 source is very biased as it uses the ACLU, read it to find out. ~~~sources~~~Carlson, Allan, “Marriage and Procreation: On Children as the First Purpose of Marriage,” The Howard Center. [1]William C. Duncan, "The State Interests in Marriage" Ave Maria Law Review (2004) 153 (PDF) [2]Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44, 73 n.8 (Haw. 1993) (Heen, J., dissenting). [3]Baker v. Vermont, 744 A.2d 864, 881 (Vt. 1999) [4]http://en.wikipedia.org... [5]Girgis, George, and Anderson, "What is Marriage" 270-271 [6] (harvard)Cara Mia DiMassa & Jessica Garrison, Why Gays, Blacks are Divided on Prop. 8,L.A. TIMES, Nov. 8, 2008. [7]http://www.nolo.com... [8]"Ten Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage" synopsis of the new book by Dr. James Dobson, Marriage Under Fire. [9]http://polhudson.lohudblogs.com... [10]