Civil unions are unconstitutional and therefore no substitute for the legalisation of gay marriage.

I now respond. 1. I disagree with my opponent that the "court must integrate the unions to ensure equality". The civil union is separate to marriage. It exists under separate legislation. Courts do not have the power to integrate civil unions with marriages. Furthemore, my opponent's case is different to Brown. In Brown, states were prohibited from separating black children from white children. This simply does not apply. You see, a gay person can enter a civil union. A straight person can enter a civil union. A gay person can marry. A straight person can marry. It is true that a gay person can only mary a person of the opposite sex and they might not want to. However, marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. This definition exists in the Marriage Acts and NOT in civil unions legislation. My opponent has not attacked marriage legislation in his argument. Rather, he claims that civil unions are unconstitutional. 2. It is true that a civil union is separate to marriage. So is a de facto relationship. An unincorporated parnership is separate from a corporation. A Catholic parish is separate from a McDonald's restaurant. There is nothing in law to say that institutions (such as marriage, civil union etc) must be the same. They are different institutions. In some jurisdictions civil unions are available not only for persons of the same gender (eg Quebec in Canada). In other jurisdiction, a civil union allows the union between two persons of the same gender while a marriage is the union between a man and woman. Neither discriminates on the basis of sexuality. Either can be entered into by a heterosexual, a bi-sexual, a homosexual or a non-sexual. 3. *YOU ARE WRONG! The law does not say that you cannot discriminate against a person. The law says that "no state. .. shall deny equal protection under the laws. " * I used the word "discriminate". I contend that the word was correct as affording unequal protection is in fact discrimination. The fact that the 14th Amendment protects the PERSON and not an institution (unless the institution is also a legal person by way of incorporation) is self evident in the wording of Section 1: Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (Emphasis added). http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com... 4. "In the opinion of the court for the case Loving vs. Virginia "marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man. " To deny a person the right to marry who they want is a violation of the 14th Amendment. " My opponent is correct. However, Loving vs Viriginia has NOT decided NOR considered a question of the meaning of marriage. Under the laws of the states that my opponent is arguing about, marriage is the union between a man and a woman. That definition has not been challenged in that case. Nor has my opponent said anything to the effect of challenging the definition. Rather, his entire argument is based on the premise (incorrect) that civil unions are unconstitutional. 5. "Not all institutions must be treated equally, but some institutions are so fundamental and necessary that to deny equal protection would be a violation of the 14th Amendment. Loving vs. Virginia proved that marriage is one of those rights. " My opponent may claim this. However, his argument is based on issues of constitutionality. The Constitution does not award any rights to institutions, with some exceptions (eg States are institutions and are given some protection under the Constitution). In conclusion, I will say the following. My opponent's resolution that "civil unions are unconstitutinal and therefore no substitute for the legalisation of gay marriage" must fail. To prove this, he would have to prove EACH of the following three points: 1. Civil unions are unconstitutional As I have demonstrated, time and time again, they are not unconstitutional. Every person and any person can enter a civil union. A person of any religion, gender, sexual orientation, race etc, is free to enter into a civil union. Civil unions legislation treats all persons equally. Thus, my opponent fails on point 1. 2. Civil unions are no substitute for a legalisation of gay marriages My opponent has shown some evidence to the effect that: a) some members of the community do not understand the nature of a civil union and thus act unfairly towards people who are in a civil union. This point does not address the equality or otherwise of civil unions with marriages. Rather, it addresses a lack of understanding within some sections of the community. An educational program would assist here. b) saying "I'm married" is different to saying "I'm in a civil union". That's true, it may not have the same ring to it. "United in love and law" might be a nicer way of putting this. But in any event, this difference is, in my submission, minute. It is not a practical difference. It is just a question of wording. I contend that there is no material difference between one and the other. However, even should you not be satisfied that I am correct, my opponent's argument must fail on points 1 and 3. 3. That there is a causal connection between the alleged (and incorrect) unconstitutionality of civil unions and the alleged (and possibly incorrect) inequality between civil unions and marriages. This arises from my opponent's use of the word "THEREFORE" in his resolution. I contend that there is no causal connection between any alleged unconstitutionality of a civil union and any alleged difference in its status to that of a marriage. I conclude by saying that my opponent has not proven his case and therefore you should vote CON. nb: If my opponent wishes to post a debate arguing that the definition of marriage should be amended in marriage legislation so as to include unions of persons of the same sex then I welcome my opponent to a debate on that subject. However, that is not the present debate.