Prop 8 is Constitutional

1.The Fundamental Right to Marry Heterosexually I have provided my opponent with two quotes from two U.S. supreme court cases (Baker and Lawrence) showing that there is no right to gay marriage as well as show the flaw reasoning by CON to show that there is a right. My opponent did not respond back to this argument and basically "drops" the argument altogether showing a concession on his part. 2. The Purpose of Civil Marriage Again, The mere appearance, existence, or understanding that marriage is between a man and a woman only indirectly encourages us to procreate inside a marriage and not outside of it. In other words, The law does not make us do right from wrong but helps us understand what is right and wrong regarding the well-being of children. Whether or not we choose to do what's right is entirely our choice. We are all allowed to raise a family outside of a marriage or without the father and not get penalized. So I never said the willingness or capacity to procreate was essential to marriage, You have the freedom to marry or procreate and not get married or procreate. I think CON probably did not understand the argument I made about the actual purpose of civil marriage and expected a different but more commonly understood version of it. However, its not my fault that he does not understand my argument as it is. I made it very clear to him. I even provided a court case called Citizens for equal protection v. Bruning that explicitly confirms that this is the actual state purpose of marriage. Lastly, CON failed to respond to the other reasons why the state allows the infertile to marry. Therefore, he concedes this as well. 3. Equal Protection Clause Since prop 8 only requires the rational basis test, It was not necessary to provide over and under inclusive arguments as to why prop 8 is constitutional. Nevertheless, I showed anyways how and why redefining marriage to include same sex couples interferes with this purpose of marriage. However, since CON has failed to understand the true nature of my purpose of civil marriage argument or just ignored it altogether, I have decided to do a different take on this argument and address something that CON said. CON claims that the traditional view of marriage has gone through many radical changes in U.S. history. I am afraid well established case law from the supreme law of the land says otherwise: In Murphy v. Ramsey (1885) the U.S. Supreme Court stated: "[C]ertainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to rank as one of the coordinate state of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one MAN and one WOMAN in the holy state of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of the reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement." The U.S. supreme court , which interprets from the supreme law of the land, has been 100% consistent throughout the history of marriage ranging from plural marriage ( Murphy v. Ramsey), from interracial marriage (Loving v Virginia), to even same sex marriage (Baker v. Nelson) that marriage is between one man and one woman and the purpose of it is to encourage procreation and rearing of children naturally to take place in a marriage. Now, here is my argument. The history of marriage and the history of racism are two completely different histories. Even if CON were to compare it to slavery, it would still Beg the Question "What about the history of marriage"? If we were to take the analogy seriously, we would have to make this conclusion: Every U.S. Supreme Court since the republic that has defined marriage between a man and a woman and/or has said the purpose of marriage is for the continuation of society has, essentially, only been attempting to invidiously and arbitrarily discriminate against gay people. So I pose this question to CON: The U.S. supreme court in numerous occasions defined marriage traditionally well before Congress and the defendants have done. Is CON also claiming invidious, arbitrary discrimination against sexual orientation of those past decisions from the U.S. supreme court? If my opponent says "no" or "I don't know" to such a claim, then how can he say or know prop 8 was based on animus when prop 8 proponents were only trying to conform to the U.S. Supreme Courts in the past? Just something to think about while you vote. Lastly, The fact is Prop 8 did not take away all of the rights that allow gay couples to have and support their families under the Domestic partner law [1]. "297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, .......... imposed upon spouses." CONCLUSION I have showed how prop 8 only took away the additional right ,created by the California supreme court, for same couples to marry. It did not take away the well established fundamental right to marry traditionally or the benefits that come with marriage. However, even if it did take away all those other rights or that Sexual orientation was suspect class, I showed that even on the strict scrutiny how prop 8 would pass the test on every level and justify the incidental taking away of a created right. The rest of CON's argument were completely off topic so I did not directly address them. Again, need I remind the voters out there that this debate is about what "IS" under the law NOT about what we "ought" to do as a matter of public policy. For the sake of argument, Legalizing gay marriage may very well be the right thing to do in terms of policy making , but Prop 8 has nothing to do with that. I would gladly debate CON on the public policy issues another time and address those kind of arguments with great impetus. [1] http://www.sos.ca.gov...