Prop 8 is Constitutional

My opponent writes the following: "The legal issue that is before us is whether traditional marriage laws are based on invidious, arbitrary, discrimination involving prop 8." The issue at stake is not whether denying gays the right to marriage is discriminatory - it is an irrefutable fact about Prop 8 that it discriminates against gays. The question at stake is whether the discrimination of gays can be justified under the U.S. Constitution. My opponent argues that it is lawful to discriminate against gays whereas I argue that it is unlawful, according to the Constitution. My opponent continues to argue that discrimination can be justified because same-sex couples cannot procreate. I already discussed this argument in the previous round: procreation is not essential to marriage because the law does not require couples to procreate in order to get married. But even if procreation were essential to marriage, this does not change the fact that gays can procreate through artificial insemination and surrogacy. If a "natural" capacity to procreate were essential to marriage (as my opponent argues), marriage would be an arbitrary institution. The reason it would be arbitrary is because the definition of "natural" is arbitrary - what makes heterosexual procreation more "natural" than homosexual procreation? All forms of procreation are a part of the natural world insofar as everything exists in and comes from the natural world. If the institution of marriage were arbitrary (as my opponent argues), then it would be unconstitutional because it would discriminate against gays. Therefore, my opponent's definition of marriage cannot be correct. In fact, the Supreme Court has explicitly said that marriage is a fundamental right. This means that marriage is not arbitrary and that it must be extended to everyone. As I have said before, if straight people can get married, so can gays. My opponent argues that allowing same-sex marriage would somehow change the traditional view of marriage. So what? Throughout history the traditional view of marriage has undergone radical change. In fact, many of the changes that the institution of marriage has gone through have been far more radical than allowing same-sex marriage. For example, no-fault divorce, which allows divorce without showing or wrong-doing or without need of any proceeding at all. In comparison, gay marriages will represent a minor change, the addition of maybe 2% in the number of married couples. The very institution of divorce itself was a far greater change to the traditional view of marriage than allowing same-sex marriage will ever be. So if history teaches us anything, it teaches us that the institution of marriage is an ever-changing one. My opponent concedes the argument that procreation is not essential to marriage, but more importantly, my opponent completely drops my argument that gay families already exist. No one would ever advocate removing children from their gay parents. Therefore, the existence of gay families, of gay couples who raise children together, demonstrates that same-sex marriage is justified. Even my opponent says that the purpose of marriage is to "encourage" couples to "rear children," which is exactly what same-sex marriage will do - encourage same-sex couples to raise children together. There is really nothing else to say. My opponent has dropped the majority of my arguments, and most of his arguments are red herrings. It should be clear that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. It discriminates against gays, and as I have shown, the discrimination is unjustifiable. The resolution is negated.