Same-sex marriage in the U.S.

A. SEX AND SEXUAL ORIENTATION EQUALITY: 1. Sex Equality I was able to show that there is no discrimination between the sexes because men and woman can equally marry someone of the opposite sex and both cannot marry the same sex. PRO's only argument that the sexes are being discriminated was this quote: "Only a man may marry a woman and only a woman may marry a man. If a man wishes to marry a man, this right is denied on the basis of their sex. " This statement is misleading because he forgets to mention that If a woman wishes to marry a man, this right would also be denied to them on the basis of sex as well thereby resulting in equal treatment between the sexes. He also provided no evidence or argument that integration is another form of discrimination. 2. Sexual Orientation Equality I have also shown that there is no evidence of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation either by explaining the purpose of marriage is for encouraging responsible procreation. Since this is the only union that can achieve this, This is why there is a fundamental right to marry someone of the opposite sex only. I have even demonstrated this by providing case law from the supreme law of the nation that reiterated my point. Therefore, gays and straights can marry anybody of the opposite sex for responsible procreation and rearing of children. B. THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO MARRY HETEROSEXUALLY (Again, I apologize to the audience. Here are the websites to the Baker v. Nelson case and its SCOTUS binding precedent. Unlike PRO's court cases, my court cases are actually from the U. S. supreme court the supreme law which automatically trump his state court decision. ) . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.cas.umt.edu... PRO is arguing in circles here again. Fundamental rights are rights based on tradition and history. Fundamental rights are based on the "is" rather than the "ought" and the Equal protection is based the "ought". This means when PRO claims there is a fundamental right to marry and therefore gay marriage is a right (another circular argument), he Then claims I am making the appeal to tradition fallacy when thats exactly what he is trying to do. C1. THE POSSIBILITY OF RESPONSIBLE PROCREATION IN PRACTICE Since PRO is challenging me to present more case law that mentions this state interest, here is a federal 8th circuit case called Cep v. Bruning which also trumps his state court cases: "The State argues that the many laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman and extending a variety of benefits to married couples are rationally related to the government interest in "steering procreation into marriage. " By affording legal recognition and a basket of rights and benefits to married heterosexual couples, such laws "encourage procreation to take place within the socially recognized unit that is best situated for raising children. " The State and its supporting amici cite a host of judicial decisions and secondary authorities recognizing and upholding this rationale. The argument is based in part on the traditional notion that two committed heterosexuals are the optimal partnership for raising children, which modern-day homosexual parents understandably decry. But it is also based on a "responsible procreation" theory that justifies conferring the inducements of marital recognition and benefits on opposite-sex couples, who can otherwise produce children by accident, but not on same-sex couples, who cannot. Whatever our personal views regarding this political and sociological debate, we cannot conclude that the State's justification "lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests. " Romer, 517 U. S. at 632.3 "Appellees argue that ï¿½ 29 does not rationally advance this purported state interest because "prohibiting protection for gay people's relationships" does not steer procreation into marriage. This demonstrates, Appellees argue, that ï¿½ 29's only purpose is to disadvantage gay people. But the argument disregards the expressed intent of traditional marriage laws -- to encourage heterosexual couples to bear and raise children in committed marriage relationships. " Now, I am glad to see PRO finally state part of my argument correctly when he said "we don't care if they actually do so long as they could". Indeed, it is based on whether they can procreate and rear children naturally not whether they will do so. Also, unlike with same sex couples, there is no way to know whether infertile couples are actually infertile without unfair state intrusive fertility tests that PRO wants to advocate for straight couples only. When with same sex couples, we don't need to. Again, its like an insurance policy. Cohabitation, fatherlessness, etc. are bad situations for children. So the state issues Marriage licenses just in case a couple naturally procreates either by accident or by choice without legal and social support in order to regulate procreation/ rearing of children. The state uses the traditional idea of marriage ,as a means to achieve this purpose, in order to encourage heterosexual couples to obtain a marriage license. Moreover, same sex couples do not have to deal with unintended pregnancies. Society need not worry about the effects of their sexual activity in the same way. Parentage is always planned and chosen and mainly at an age where they would be able to support a family on their own. This is why comparisons between gay cohabitat parents and straight ones show gay cohabitat parents to be superior. C2. THE POSSIBILITY OF RESPONSIBLE PROCREATION IN PRINCIPLE For the sake argument, I will pretend that detection of infertility within straight couples is no problem. PRO never addressed my other argument about why we allow the infertile. Again, the state cannot promote responsible procreation and rearing of children without referencing and acknowledging the traditional definition of marriage because it's the only union that can procreate and fulfill this particular state's objective; unlike same sex couples who cannot by definition procreate. Therefore, infertile heterosexuals do not change the definition nor challenge the intention of the institution of marriage. This is because the definition of marriage (the means) and the purpose of it (the ends) are synonymous. This means an important governmental distinction between the two relationships would be reasonable in order to continue advancing the state's interest in encouraging responsible procreation and rearing of children to each generation while the state can encourage homosexuals to adopt and stay together with civil unions. C3. SEPARATE IS EQUAL Even If the audience did not accept any of my previous arguments, I argued that giving them civil unions would still satisfy the equal protection clause and in terms of public policy . All PRO did to address this is by claiming things I did not say or argue. Other than that, PRO did not provide a counter argument. D. Sources Well, What PRO does not seem to get here is that Correlation is an essential part in proving causation. Secondly, When we changed the divorce laws to no-fault and reduced all barriers, it was at least 10 years of research before they began to accumulate data that indicated the impact of that change on an empirical level. Therefore, it is not realistic to find proof of a causal link between redefining marriage and the weakening of marriage within this time frame. In conclusion, there is no right to gay so-called marriage and no evidence of discrimination. However, even if we assumed there was, I showed how it would be justified in denying it under any scrutiny. In addition, as a matter of public policy, I showed that redefining marriage would be corrosive to progress and potentially detrimental to society.