Prop 8. is constitutional

It's great to face this debate again. I negate the resolution and stand on the CON in this debate arguing that Propostion 8 is not Constitutional. Before continuing in this debate, I would like to establish the following parameters in order to better understand the resolution. Observation 1: The making of gay marriage legal or illegal depends on a state or government's establishment of a definition expanding or limiting marriage. This is why in gay marriage debates, we consistantly hear the terminology "redefinition of marriage." In this debate, what we are evaluating is a redefinition in the legal term "marriage" and whether or not this new definition violates the Constitution.Observation 2: My opponent has more of the burden of proof because his side of the debate requires a full validation by the American Constitution. Whereas my opponent has to prove that Proposition 8 in no way violates any single prospect of the American Constituion, the CON is only required to provide even one such violation or reasoning for a violation. With these parameters established in this resolution, I move on toward my contention:Contention: In the context of the American Constitution, Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.When looking at the intention of Proposition 8 and the result of its definition of marriage only to include heterosexual couples as well as how Proposition 8 functioned, we can see that the proposition violated both the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. This constitutes multiple violations to the American Constitution and henceforth, the proposition is unconstitutional. Sub-point 1a: Proposition 8 violates the Ninth Amendment.The following explains the intention and function of the Ninth Amendment of the American Constitution: "The Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. ... It provides that the naming of certain rights in the Constitution does not take away from the people rights that are not named. " [1] The Framers of the Constitution realized that not every right belonging to the members of the citizenry can be explictitly enumerated by the document, and henceforth crafted this amendment in order to protect the basic, natural rights of human beings (which encompasses the definition of human rights with regard that natural rights are the rights that are placed upon human beings and are inalienable). Henceforth, the way to prove that Proposition 8 constitutes a violation to this amendment is if I prove that gay marrige is a natural right or the prohibition thereof constitutes a violation of a right or the principles of justice. A. With the institution of Proposition 8, same-sex couples are left with only two options: enter into a domestic partnership (still legal under California law for homosexual couples) or not enter into any legal partnership recognized by state government. What we have here is involuntary consent of accepting a decision because of a lack of decent alternatives. Rational decisions imposed by another entity can be deemed fair or unfair according to the principle of non-dominance. [2] In the state of California, domestic partnerships do not acquire the same safeguards and protections as a marriage under its law. Domestic partnerships are not universally recognized, does not provide the same taxing benefits, does not demand that partners therein to support a child, and the list goes on. [3] Essentially, with marriage not an option as a result of the institutionalization of Proposition 8, same-sex partners have only two options: accept a partnership by the state that doesn't provide the same benefits that they would have if they were in a marriage or not enter into a partnership at all, be given no benefits at all, and have no safeguards at all by the government. There is obviously here a lack of decent alternatives. Homosexuals can get married, however, but it can only be to someone of the opposite gender, which is also a poor alternative because it isn't practical. B. When looking directly at gay marriage itself s a right, we can see that its prohibition violates human rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights iterates what basic rights people have regardless of distinction (hence, they serve as natural rights). Article 16 of this document assures that men and women full of age can marry in the first clause, and in the second provides that the only requirement for a marriage to be rightfully existent is if both intending spouses provide free and full consent to marry. In the intention for couples to marry, these conditions are existent, but still denied by California's government on basis of their sex. The state of California has added an unneccesary obstacle and requirement in order for a couple to wed, constituting a hampering of this human right.Sub-point 1b: Propostion 8 constitutes a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.In the Minnesota Supreme Court case Baker v. Nelson (1971), the Supreme Court of the state provided that the condition at which constitutes a violation of the Equal Protection Clause is if a governmental decision is done on basis of discrimination. [4] Loving v. Virginia (1967) added that a marriage cannot be limited without an exceedingly good reason. [5] Proposition 8 was a referendum, meaning that the basis for the decision was rested in the hands of the people of California. If I prove that the basis for even one person was because of unfair discrimination or poor reason, this constitutes a violation of this clause. A. William Tam, one of the five official proponents of Proposition 8 aruged the following about why Proposition 8 should be supported: " It is very important that our children won't grow up to fantasize or think about, 'Should I marry Jane or John?' " He also argued that the acceptance of gay marriage would lead to the legalization of polygamy, incest, pedophillia, etc. [6]B. The court trial over Proposition 8 presented evidence that proponents of the referendum's decision were incredibly vitriolic and discriminatory toward gay people, including in their decisions. [7] [1] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... [2] http://plato.stanford.edu... [3] http://www.letcaliforniaring.org... [4] http://www.cas.umt.edu... [5] http://www.slate.com... [6] http://latimesblogs.latimes.com... [7] http://www.edgeboston.com...