Gay Marriage

C1: The 14th amendment The equal protection clause states the laws shall be equal, in other words the state/federal laws must treat EVERYONE equally. [1] Now, before we continue, we must ask when possible violations or when arguments arise from this clause. This usually arises when the law grants on class or group the right to engage in one activity, yet denies another the same opportunity. "A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws." [2]Now, we can create the same scenario for marriage. If the state prohibits gays from entering a marriage contract, due to preference, then it violates the 14th amendment as equality is not being given. This is a simple concept, and this is easily proven and logically correct. Further more, my opponent may rebut this by claiming "marriage is a privilege", which is indeed false. The courts have ruled many times marriage is a fundamental human right, like in loving v. Virginia:"[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right" ... "[an] expression of emotional support and public commitment." [3]The freedom to marry has long been a right in US laws a courts, and denying same sex couples this right is a violation of rights. Another violation is presents is the due process clause. "[No state shall] deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." [4] Now, we must ask how does it violate this clause? Well it is quite simple. It does not allow same sex couples to marry the people they choose, and choice is long protected in our constitution. And, as there is no reason to be against SSM, well to ban it, and it already violates the equal protection clause, they are being deprived this right without due process of law. C2: Homosexuals qualify as a suspect classThis argument heavily relies on the one above, as if they are not a suspect class, then nothing is being deprived. If they quality, we can agree that they are being deprived equal rights. Before I continue, lets look into a little history. As in Texas, sodomy was banned at one period of time, and this was a violation of rights and was extreme discrimination. Further more, it is well known that being gay is natural, [yes DDO, I said it]. Many biological and genetic factors come into play proving being gay is in fact natural, with this they can be considered a suspect class. other history includes them being banned from the military, this too violated their 14th amendment for the same reason SSM bans do. Also, it is quite obvious, sexual preference ought to have, and DOES NOT have any effect to ones actual ability to serve society, hinting they are no different then us, except in their personal lives. Now, with this information, I not only strengthen my former case on the equal protection clause, but prove we are denying a right from a suspect class of individuals whom deserve the same rights as us. C3: Governments pocketbooks One debate in the SSM case is will it help or actually hurt the governments current deficit, raise revenue, hurt it etc. Current CBO reports show recognizing SSM will decrease the deficit by 1 billion dollars (+1billion dollars in their pockets). "{a new} Congressional Budget Office report indicating that the federal government would save close to a billion dollars a year if same sex couples were allowed to marry, according to a just released study by the Congressional Budget Office." [5]The actual study was on a PDF, closed the html, and was to lazy to open the PDF so used the summary by source #5. So we see a minimal, but existent plus to the governments pocketbooks, but how about banning it? Does banning it have worse adverse effects? The answer is yes, the downsides are worse then the upside (in magnitude, a larger push down when banned then a push up when allowed, so banning it is terrible, allowing it has some benefit). Just in one state ON STATE [California] it cos 1 billion dollars to ban SSM. [6] With this, we can also assume this is worse all around, as the overall plus is balanced out by one single [former] ban. Allowing it has a small benefit, whereas banning it has LARGE detrimental effects. C4: benefits the children Most counties, 96% in fact, have at least on gay couple raising kids. [7] Now, I dont care if one likes or dislikes this, but this is a fact, these kids exist, and these kids as a new generation deserve the best. Now, we must ask if they actually will get the best without Same Sex Marriage. First, there are many benefits to the marriage business, as obtaining marriage means you get many benefits. Although there are many, there are many significant ones I will name. Inheritance, family partnership taxes, medicare and many others. [8] These benefits help these families socio-economically, and therefore help the kids in that perspective. Also we must look at other things, as from many studies gay parents actually parent better. [9] Basically as gay marriage will help the family, and the parents that are gay are better, why not allow it?C5: Economics Many millions of dollars are spent on marriage licenses, which helps the economy. Ranging from around 5 million dollars, in smaller states such as Iowa, and 155 million, like in larger states like New York. [10]CONCLUSION:Gay marriage should be legal. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu... [2] Ibid [3] Loving v. Virginia, 388 US 1, 12 (1967) [4] http://www.law.cornell.edu... [5] http://www.eqca.org... [6] http://online.wsj.com... [7] http://www.census.gov... (2000)[8] http://www.nolo.com... [9] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [10] http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...