Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Legal in the United States

I want to say that it has been a pleasure to get to argue with Contradiction. I hope you all have enjoyed this debate as much as I have. In my closing remarks I will attempt to draw together all of the relevant threads of the argument I have presented. Any new arguments or court cases that Con may bring up in the last round should be disregarded because I won't have an opportunity to respond to them. Though Con has continued to defend his procreation argument, I don't think he has successfully managed to carry any of his contentions. C1: The right to marriage is a fundamental right. For starters, the notion that I am appealing to authority is plainly absurd. An appeal to authority is fallacious when the authority in question isn't an expert on the topic of which he or she is speaking. The Attorney General, the former Solicitor General and federal judges are all experts in constitutional law. Related to that previous point, it is still not the case that I'm arguing in a circle. I've defined marriage. I've shown why the state has an interest in marriage pertaining to that conception of marriage. And unlike Con, I've given the testimony of actual experts to explain why marriage's core social meaning has more to do with choice, mutual feelings and commitment. Con later claims that he has presented evidence that gay relationships are not conducive to childrearing. The book that he pointed to, which is titled A Queer Thing Happened to America, is nothing more than anti-gay propaganda. As the Attorney David Boies points out, that type of material is simply junk science.[1] With regard to the State's interest in marriage, I've given the testimony of Deputy Director Linette Scott. Unlike Con's sources, she is an actual expert in questions related to the State's interest in marriage; and she has testified under oath in federal court on behalf of the California Department of Public Health. The state clearly has an interest in promoting stable homes and public order. These things entail, almost by definition, what a state is. A state is an ordered group of people living together in a civilized manner. As I've said before, friends, college roommates and pet owners don't organize into cohesive family units to create stable households. Con then says that William Duncan and John Eastman have detailed cases indicating that procreation is in the state's interest with respect to marriage. Apparently their lists were so "exhaustive" that it didn't occur to Con to mention one case. I'm not going to do Con's homework for him. The legal precedent that matters (i.e., Supreme Court precedent), has maintained since 1888 that procreation isn't a prime component of marriage.[2] C2: Gay people qualify as a suspect class. 1. First, Con claims that his argument is neither contrived nor ad hoc because his view makes sense of the state's interest in marriage. The problem, however, is that his argument is contrived and ad hoc because he has not been able to provide any evidence that the state has an interest in procreation, let alone 'procreative types.' His argument, therefore, is based on a false assumption. Con's (non-existent) evidentiary presentation does not carry his argument. As I've argued, Con's conception of marriage stems from a private interest that carries no accompanying secular purpose. Those private (and often religious[3]) interests have no bearing on public policy. 2. Second, Con then accuses me of attacking a straw man by citing Turner v. Safley. This is simply not the case. My point here, which seems to have escaped Con, is that the Supreme Court has never mentioned procreation or 'procreative types' as being an essential part of marriage. This, of course, is but one of the 14 Supreme Court cases I have mentioned on this point. Moreover, Con has not responded to Harvard Professor Nancy Cott's testimony indicating that marriage is not primarily based on procreation. 3. Third, Con's attempt to argue that the state has an interest in procreation even if its overpopulated is clearly fallacious. If the state is overpopulated like China, which, incidentally, has a one child policy to curb procreation,[4] then the state doesn't have an interest in procreation. Con argues that in such a scenario the state would have an interest in "affirming that conjugal marriage is the proper framework for procreation." This, however, is not an interest in procreation. This is exactly what I mean when I say that Con's position really boils down to a desire to entrench heteronormative views into society. Teaching people the "proper" way to have sex and create children is not a state interest. As such, I haven't attacked a straw man. 4. Fourth, I've never suggested that Con has argued that same-sex marriage will harm heterosexual marriage. Rather, I've just pointed this out to bolster my case. Even if procreation is one of many interests that the state has in marriage, gay and lesbian couples don't harm this interest. Because of this, it would be improper to exclude gays and lesbians from marriage. And despite what Con says, I've already addressed his argument relating to the state's interest in marriage. Under my argument, the state doesn't have an interest in marriage because marriage is an emotional union. Rather, marriages help to create public order and stable households. Con later claims that social science is irrelevant to this debate; however, he is simply incorrect. The Supreme Court has ruled in Plyler v. Doe that if a statue harms a certain group, it can weigh against the statue passing constitutional review.[5] In the Plyler case, the statue in question harmed the children of illegal immigrants by depriving them of an education. So, the fact that same-sex marriage bans stigmatize gay couples and hamper their ability to take care of their children does weigh against those bans under constitutional review. 5. Fifth, despite what Con may believe, I've already addressed his claim that my arguments beg the question. Moreover, I've also addressed Con's argument about judges applying strict scrutiny. As I've said, any judge that dogmatically accepts a certain conception of marriage could rule in any way. That doesn't mean they're correct. Con then goes on to suggest that strict scrutiny is the inappropriate level of constitutional review. But his response here is really a non-argument. Indeed, in light of Attorney General Eric Holder's well reasoned arguments that I have defended, rational basis review hardly seems appropriate, though other courts have ruled differently. Rather than deal with Holder's argument on its own merits, Con tries to fallaciously dismiss Holder's argument by appealing to previous court rulings. C3: Same-sex marriage bans violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. My equal protection claims have still gone unchallenged. C4: Same-sex marriage bans violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Because Con has failed to refute my argument based on suspect classification strict scrutiny must necessarily be used to judge this debate. Therefore, even if you agree with the 'responsible procreation' argument, Con's argument still fails because it isn't narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest. | Conclusion | In conclusion, I've meticulously outlined Supreme Court cases which affirm that marriage is an aspect of privacy and liberty, not a privilege conferred by the state for the purpose of procreation. These findings have also been confirmed in large part by the experts from top universities that specialize in marriage. By contrast, Con has not presented any credible evidence (or legal precedent) in support of his position. Therefore, same-sex marriage should be legal in the United States. Sources: http://tinyurl.com...