Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

Allow me to begin by thanking Lightkeeper for taking time out of his day to debate with me. Clearly, there seems to be some considerable distance between us. And while I do appreciate his attempt to show that Proposition 8 is constitutional, I cannot help pointing out that his central argument is patently fallacious. The fact that a law treats every person the same via discrimination does not mean that it is constitutional. Imagine, for example, there was a law that prevented everyone from marrying a person with the same hair color. It should be obvious that this law would apply equally to every person. It should also be obvious that this law would be properly insane and unconstitutional. The government does not have an interest in preventing two blondes that fall in love from marrying each other. Obviously, the fact that a law prima facie applies to all people equally does not mean that it is reasonable. I'll get into this more later; but for now, it is sufficient to recognize that a law can only be constitutional if it survives rational basis scrutiny. And as I will demonstrate, Proposition 8 most certainly does not survive rational basis scrutiny. C1: Proposition 8 unnecessarily harms a vulnerable minority group. I'm somewhat disappointed that my interlocutor has failed to tackle the scientific evidence I have presented in my opening case. I almost feel as though he didn't actually read my last round. Previously, I wrote at length to outline how Proposition 8 negatively impacts gay people and their families, and my opponent hasn't said anything in response. Lest this section be deemed unimportant to constitutional law, there is a reason I decided to dedicate three paragraphs to arguing that Proposition 8 causes unnecessary harm to gay people and their families. Given the damage that is incurred by Proposition 8, it becomes very difficult, indeed, to demonstrate how this measure furthers a legitimate government interest. Furthermore, there is a long and sordid history of discrimination against gay individuals that illustrates how they are vulnerable to mistreatment. For example, Abrahamic laws set forth in Leviticus have prescribed the death penalty for homosexuals. [1] It would not be untrue to say that throughout much of history, revealing yourself to be a homosexual would entail putting your life on the line. Even in modern day Uganda, homophobia is so rampant and endemic in the society that homosexuals are constantly in jeopardy of being beaten and murdered by a disorderedly mob. [2] On top of this, federal and local laws have often been used to discriminate against gays in the workplace and elsewhere. [3] Consequently, gay people do reasonably qualify as a "suspect class". [4] As Judge Walker of Perry v. Schwarzenegger has stipulated, gay people are the exact type of group that the strict scrutiny form of judicial review was meant to protect. [5] Therefore, Proposition 8 can only be properly supported if it can be found to have a rational basis by furthering a justifiable government interest. C2: Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. My opponent has claimed that Proposition 8 is constitutional because heterosexuals and homosexuals are both unable to marry someone of the opposite sex. Indeed, he goes on to call this arbitrary division a "STERLING example of equal treatment by law." This assertion is completely unwarranted and illogical, as I've pointed out earlier. Honestly, who does my opponent think he is going to fool? Proposition 8 was struck down by Judge Walker on the exact same grounds that the Racial Integrity Act of 1924 was struck down. [6] It does not survive rational basis scrutiny. There is not a rational basis for defining marriage as being between two people of the same gender anymore than there is a rational basis for defining marriage as being between two people of the same race. Unless my opponent can demonstrate that Proposition 8 does survive rational basis scrutiny, then he has no hope of showing why it is constitutional. The defense of Perry v. Schwarzenegger tried to do this, and their arguments were a joke. Now, I don't want to waste anyone's time by refuting arguments that haven't yet been made. As such, I'll just wait until my opponent attempts to demonstrate why Proposition 8 can withstand rational basis scrutiny. C3: Proposition 8 violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Once again, I'm going to wait until my opponent provides an actual argument to demonstrate why Proposition 8 survives the strict scrutiny standard of judicial review before I continue to make my case. I ask my opponent, what legitimate government interest is furthered by defining marriage as only being between a man and a woman? He seems to suggest that allowing committed gay couples to marry will lead to bestiality and incest. This is nothing more than a slippery slope fallacy. Neither children nor animals are capable of entering into legal contracts with adults. My challenger does make another assertion that is quite elusive. He claims that "Since marriage is not dependent on fertility, sexual attraction or romantic involvement, there is no merit in any claim that prohibiting everyone from marrying people of the same gender constitutes a differential treatment of those who are sexually or emotionally involved with persons of the same sex (ie homosexuals)." I'm afraid that I don't understand the point of my opponent's non sequitur (and I don't think that he does either). If there is logic to be found in this claim, I humbly admit that I have failed to see it. ::Conclusion:: Up until this point, my opponent simply hasn't given any compelling argument to demonstrate how Proposition 8 can possibly survive rational basis scrutiny. Moreover, the arguments he has given were the exact same arguments used to defend the anti-miscegenation laws that existed in the 20th century. They are every bit as specious now as they were back in 1967. As should be obvious at this point, Proposition 8 does nothing more than target a suspect class for unequal treatment and advance the private views that gay couples are inferior to straight couples. What has been presented thus far is not a coherent basis for anti-gay discrimination; rather, it only further demonstrates that there is no rational foundation for Proposition 8. Sources: 1. "Leviticus 20:13: Concerning Homosexuality." ReligiousTolerance.org by the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. Web. 05 Nov. 2010. http://www.religioustolerance.org.... 2. Harris, By Dan. "Anti-Homosexuality Bill In Uganda Causes Global Uproar - ABC News."ABCNews.com - ABCNews.com: - ABC News. Web. 05 Nov. 2010. http://abcnews.go.com.... 3. Nguyen, Minh T. "Civil Rights - The History of Gay Rights." 1999. Web. 5 Nov. 2010. http://www.enderminh.com.... 4. "Suspect Class: Legal Definition of Suspect Class by the Free Online Law Dictionary." Legal Dictionary. Web. 05 Nov. 2010. 5. "Judge Overturns California's Proposition 8." Scribd. Web. 05 Nov. 2010. http://www.scribd.com.... 6. "U.S. Supreme Court: LOVING v. VIRGINIA" FindLaw - For Legal Professionals. Web. 5 Nov. 2010. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com....