Gay Marriage Should Be Legal in the United States

Onto the final round. I feel like there were some really bad choices made by my opponent in his last round. Let's examine those. My opponents spends his first paragraph arguing that I must prove marriage unconstitutional. He additionally states that the only attempt I've made to argue such is through saying that legal marriage infringes upon legal rights.... Unfortunately for him that's not true.... "neither gay nor straight marriage laws are narrowly tailored or are the least restrictive means to a goal" "Neither gay nor straight marriage concerns a compelling government interest." "marriage in general hurts society." (second and third contentions) "Gay marriage hurts religion" I count... ummm.... 4. Next my opponent launches into a five point attack on why I have lost my case, let's examine those points now. "1) He never states what the imposition actually is." >>Please re-read my last speech, the last three paragraphs summarize. Also see above argument. "2) Legal marriage is based on procreation, paternity, child/spousal support, familial stability, & survivor's rights (http://www.usconstitution.net......)" >> Please read the source my opponent has produced. My argument is that the government took religious marriage. Here is the third line of my opponent's source: "Because this religious rite had so many secular benefits, it became recognized by the secular world, and became subject to governmental definition and regulation." Adopted by government. "3) None of these issues actually fringe upon religious practices." >>Once again not my argument. I'm saying that the government has unconstitutionally taken an idea created by religion. This is conceded by my opponent through his source. "4) Religious marriage is certainly possible sans marriage licenses." >>Yes... I don't know how this applies... "5) It is religion that has co-opted civil marriage by requiring marriage licenses to obtain religious marriage - not the other way around." >>Once again yes, but this only proves my point. Religion wants to hold onto an institution that is there's. Next my opponent makes an argument on how the only way which I can prove a law unconstitutional is via the Sherbet Test. While I respect his knowledge of legal issues this simply isn't the case. If the only way the supreme court could ever make a ruling was by using precedents already set then the supreme court would never have made a decision. The supreme court regularly passes laws that would be mutually exclusive in practice. My argument is that it would be completely plausible for the supreme court to rule against legal marriage. However, my opponent faces a dire problem here. Even if you as a judge or reader feels that I must uphold the Sherbet Test my opponent will still lose this debate. He argues that the strict scrutiny standard does not apply because he has already proved marriage as constitutional: "The strict scrutiny standard does not apply to civil marriage's constitutionality. Marriageable people do not constitute a suspect class, and as I have shown above, civil marriage does not infringe a constitutional right." That would be a really sweet argument, but only if it was indeed true that my only argument against marriage was the anti-religious contention. Unfortunately for my opponent I also made three other arguments. One of those arguments was that straight marriage and gay marriage both infringe upon the rights of transgender and non-gender peoples. Those people are a SUSPECT CLASS. This means that abolition of marriage under my logic AND my opponents logic can be evaluated via the strict scrutiny standard. This is problematic for my opponent..... I have all three planks of the strict scrutiny standard in my favor. 1. Compelling interest. My opponent makes an argument by citing a supreme court case. I believe that marriage can have the benefits my opponent cites. However, my opponent also concedes the two contentions I leverage against marriage. Not only does he agree that there is a marriage stigma in the U.S. but his case also allows for the disenfranchisement of transgender and the genderless. This is simply devastating for my opponent. While there are benefits of marriage those same benefits can be had through civil unions and simple contracts. "procreation, paternity, child/spousal support, familial stability, & survivor's rights", can all happen without marriage inside of civil unions and legal contracts. Additionally civil unions and legal contracts don't face the downfalls of marriage, they don't discriminate against groups of people, and they don't hurt the church in any ways. Abolishing legal marriage is the only things that completely upholds equality and is completely constitutional. Also on this point my opponent argues that civil unions present a separate but equal problem for gays. If that were true then gay marriage would present the same problem. Additionally even if my opponent were right the lack of equality for the trans gender community with marriage would outweigh the separate but equal problem with civil unions. Finally my opponent never bothers to explain why this would be the case so I'm really just going to say, "no it wouldn't." P.s. My opponent saying that marriage has all the great benefits is part of the marriage stigma I'm talking about. My entire contention takes his argument into consideration. 2. Narrowly tailored or the least restrictive means to a goal. My opponent starts the argument here with this: "When the goal IS civil marriage," That would be true except for the fact that the goal in this case is for equality not civil marriage. Which means that forcing civil marriage to grant equality is more restrictive. Additionally though even if the goal was for the benefits of civil marriage those same benefits could be less restrictively found via civil unions or simple contracts. Next my opponent argues that, I "must provide an example of a less restrictive system that secures all of the benefits mentioned in Goodridge. All two pages of them." This is once again a great example of the marriage stigma argument which I have already made. The fact that my opponent dropped the entire argument means that this mindset towards marriage is harmful and often untrue. But finally, I do reach the same benefits through the less restrictive system such as civil unions and contracts already in place outside of marriages. Finish Him ============ The only way feasibly that my opponent could win this debate round would be to prove that allowing gay marriage would fix the transgender and non-gendered problems. Without proving this the fact remains that the transgender community is a suspect class and that we would have a compelling reason to reject marriage based on constitutionality. My opponent argues two things: 1. "the rectification of prohibitions on gay marriage would either remove the same prohibitions for these individuals" >> First my opponent never explains how this happens. Second I gave an entire two paragraphs against this idea which he never refuted. Third this idea is completely false, the resolution states gay marriage not transgender and non-gendered marriage. 2. "or provide the legal basis for doing the same" >> First, once again not explained. Second, this doesn't fix the problem. This would be like Ab Lincoln saying that we should allow African American men to vote because it paves the way for African American women to vote later. This is a bad idea if there is another means which would allow them to both vote right now. In this case my opponent is saying that we should allow Gays the right to marry and maybe it will help transgenders later. This is a bad idea because we can solve the entire problem NOW! Abolish legal marriage NOW! Considering this contention alone there is no way my opponent could win the debate round. Vote to abolish.