Prop 8. is constitutional

Are my points irrelevant? A theme amongst my opponent’s case is that my rebuttal was “irrelevant”. So instead of rebutting every single point that argues this, I will just clump it all together. Just like what I did last round. My opponents reasoning here are flawed. Just because I do not state the 9th amendment is irrelevant because… does not mean my points where irrelevant or any points where dropped. My opponent’s case relies on two aspects: It violates the 9th amendment It violates the equal protection clause Now for something to violate the ninth amendment, it must violate some unnamed right. For it to violate the equal protection clause, some right and liberty must be being violated. My case rebuts the heart of these contentions. For this to be valid, marriage must be defined. My opponent cited many court cases that stated marriage was a right and the right should not be violated. Surprisingly I agree! Marriage is a right; the disagreement is what marriage right entails. Marriage is defined as a right, as stated, as the purpose of marriage is to facilitate procreation. This makes it necessary to involve one man and one woman. Therefore when a court argues marriage is a right, it does not mean gay “marriage” is a right. The right of marriage, therefore, simply does not apply. There is no right to same-sex marriage, in other words. My points are not irrelevant as it refutes the sole contention of my opponent. Burden of proof It was decided in round one the BOP is even, I would also note my opponent is actually the one arguing the loss of liberty. Therefore my opponent is actually the one making a claim. The burden is even. That was a pre-determined variable. And even if I have the BOP, I have showed there is no right to SSM therefore there is no logical way that proposition 8 is unconstitutional. What Marriage is My opponents claim is that proposition 8 is not infringing on what marriage actually is. Though this is false. Though the reason I did not refute O1 is because the definition of marriage was already established in Round one and by California law. In California law proposition 22, which was passed in 2000, has the same wording as proposition eight [1]. Further, my opponents O1 is actually dodging what the constitution is, it shows that my opponent does not comprehend marriage and constitutional law. In any legal system where the government can distinguish marriage and non-marrital relationships they are going to face some type of “discrimination”. Therefore, based on constitutional law, it is okay to limit marriage to certain individuals as long as marriage is properly defined, like it was in proposition 22. Therefore my opponent still needs to find a state worthy definition of marriage, instead of dodging the point and falsely claiming observations need to be refuted. The states interest My opponent brings up many good points, and they are numbered, so I will rebut them in the same format. (1)My opponent claims I need to show how the state should not allow SSM. Though the reasoning was explained in round one, meaning my opponent likely has not read my case in depth. I will explain the reasoning, again. When the state recognizes marriage, it gives many benefits to the couples (tax benefits, as well as many others). All of these cost money. Basically marriage couples are subsidized. So the state has the reason to ask: why? This is a compelling reason to ban something as giving costly benefits out for no reason hurts the state. So they have the right to ask: why does this interest us? Marriage between two heterosexual couples, in a proper setting in which the state creates, encourages (though does not mandate) procreation which creates a stable family unit and new children. This is essential in raising a healthy society, and therefore it’s in the states interest so subsidize it. Homosexual couples, however, rarely create children unless through artificial techniques. This is insidious to the family unit and hurts propagation to society. Therefore homosexuals fail to meet the compelling states interest heterosexuals meet [2]. (2)My opponent claims I must prove that California’s interest is in procreation/family rising. But responsible procreation, which is not excessive, something heterosexual marriage laws enforce, helps raise a proper and growing society. This is always in the states interest. Now as the state subsidizes it there is a states interest, the question is “what is it”. My solution is a logical one; my opponent has failed to offer any counter examples therefore, just like definitions in a debate, the offered definition stands. In this case states interest. And to bring it up in the last round would be a conduct violation (as it would be impossible to respond too). (3)My opponent’s response here is actually quite weak. The states interest is not procreation until you have eight kids, rather responsible procreation which is the creation of one or two kids. This keeps the population semi-stable or on a decreasing path. I would also like to note we are not overpopulated, and projections say our population will likely flatling at 9 billion. Also fertility rates have been dropping for a long time. Based on this graph, population is set to increase very slowly and then (if it stays on course) begin to decline: Further the argument does not prove procreation is intrinsically bad, rather too much of it is. That’s why I argued, as well as law scholars and the government contends, that responsible procreation is the states interest. [--Con Case--] There is a right to marriage, I stated, not a right to gay marriage. My opponent uses a straw man here. As stated, marriage is a right as it is defined clearly as a heterosexual union in which will likely [responsibly] procreate. Unreasonable decision? So? If there is no right for it, whether or not it is just is a different debate. This is irrelevant as that decision is not a right. Strawman? That is not a strawman, I encourage readers to read my opponents argument, “Propostion 8 constitutes a violation of the Equal Protection Clause” The equal protection clause is part of the 14th amendment, therefore my rebuttal applies and I extend my points. Conclusion: We see my opponent must have felt the pressure as I logically and legally proved there is no right to same sex marriage. He argues my points where “irrelevant” as still has to prove homosexual marriage is a right so my opponents contention works. My opponent has failed to do so therefore the point stands refuted. With no right being infringed, there is no constitutional problem. Taking away a privilege is not unconstitutional. My opponent’s case fails, and is extremely weak. My opponent’s rebuttal shows she has not read the debate in depth. As no rights are being infringed, vote PRO. Also, I will bring forth the quote… again: “Any legal system that distinguishes marriage from other, non-marital forms of association, romantic or not, will justly exclude some kinds of union from recognition. So before we can conclude that some marriage policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, or any other moral or constitutional principle, we have to determine what marriage actually is and why it should be recognized legally in the first place.”[3] As we can see pro shuld win this debate. Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://tech.mit.edu... [3] Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, "What is Marriage?" Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34, (Winter 2010)