The Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.

I again thank the proponent for this invigorating debate. I'll jump right in… 4. Quoting from my opponent's resource (http://en.wikipedia.org...), a quote from United States v. Darby reads, "The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered." From the same resource, it is pointed out that "the Supreme Court rarely declares laws unconstitutional for violating the Tenth Amendment." Could DOMA be such a rare exception? If anything, DOMA protects tenth amendment rights by ensuring the decisions of one state are not forced upon another. The proponent states that "DOMA makes it impossible for the state to give same sex couple these rights." How so? DOMA simply regulates transference of records from one state to another. It says nothing about preventing states from giving additional rights to same sex couples. 5. My opponent says, "The DOMA is a reaction to the FACT that banning same sex marriage equality is unconstitutional." There are two problems with this singular statement. First, he is appealing to the alleged motives of DOMA, as though motives are sufficient in determining the constitutionality of anything. Second, the statement is simply incorrect. According to his own resource (http://www.answers.com...), DOMA was a reaction to the concern that if Hawaii were to legalize same-sex marriage, then other states would be forced to do the same. The motives of DOMA are further substantiated by a resource I offered earlier (http://www.lectlaw.com...), which states that approximately 30 states were so alarmed at the decision of Hawaii they began legislative efforts to defend themselves from being forced to recognize Hawaii's decision. In other words, DOMA was a reaction to having to give "full faith and credit" to Hawaii's same-sex marriage laws, not to the alleged fact that banning same sex marriage equality is unconstitutional. My opponent also engages in half truth when stating that "Hawaii had realised [sic] that same sex marriage inequality was unconstitutional." Again, I must point out that my opponent's own resource is much more specific than he would have us believe. His own resource points out that "the Hawaii state supreme court, in Baerh v. Levin, found that denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples violated the state constitutional prohibition on discrimination on the basis of sex." Hawaii's decision had to do with the state constitution, not the federal constitution. Furthermore, my opponent's resource goes on to point out that Hawaii later overturned the decision by an amendment to its state constitution. I felt it necessary to point out my opponent's poor scholarship in this case. The remainder of my opponent's point relies on the motives of DOMA, which are inadmissible insofar as constitutionality is concerned. 1. A) The proponent and I agree on one thing, it is certainly unrealistic to expect homosexuals to enter into heterosexual marriage in order to gain those particular protections. However, as per the definition of marriage upon which we agreed, it is an institution. DOMA clarifies the current marriage institution to mean a heterosexual one. It follows, then, that homosexual marriage is a separate institution with its own protections. Indeed, we see this to be the case giving the recognition of civil unions by some states. DOMA does not, in any way, prevent states from making both institutions equal. In fact, Massachusetts does exactly this in spite of DOMA. Therefore, DOMA does not violate equal protection. B) My opponent says, "A heterosexual marriage gets 1,138 federal benefits that a same sex marriage is not allowed to get due to the unfair law of DOMA." This is incorrect. Same-sex marriage protections are disallowed due to the state, not to DOMA. DOMA does not force a state to be unfair. C) This point restates my opponent's civil rights issue from his original point 2. Therefore, I'll defer the rebuttal to point 2 below. However, I'd like to point out to the voters that my opponent's reference for cases Lawrence vs. Texas and Romer vs. Evans had nothing to do with those cases directly. D) This point simply restates of the proponent's original point 2, and offers no rebuttal of my response. I'll defer then to point 2 below. 2. My argument is that DOMA does not prevent anyone from entering into heterosexual marriage. A person of any race, creed, religion, sexual orientation, etc., may marry a person of the opposite sex. Loving vs. Virginia was an important case because some states prevented citizens from entering into the marriage institution based on race. DOMA does not prevent anyone from doing this. Granted, it is unreasonable to expect homosexuals to enter into heterosexual marriage, but we dealt with that issue in point 4. A) DOMA does not add or remove benefits. DOMA simply leaves those benefits up to the state. The state may be wrong or unfair, but that does not make DOMA unconstitutional. As pointed out earlier, DOMA does not prevent a state from giving the same 1,138 benefits to same-sex marriages. If there is unequal treatment, it is the fault of the state, not DOMA. B) My opponent says, "It is discriminatory to say that gay, lesbian, and bisexual persons must marry a person of the opposite sex. It would be equally discriminatory to force heterosexuals to marry persons of the same sex." Notice the use of the words must and force. DOMA does not force a citizen to marry anyone against their will. While a homosexual will "feel" forced into heterosexual marriage for the additional benefits, it is not because DOMA compels them to. C) My opponent says, "DOMA is discriminatory. It does not allow the federal government to recognize same sex marriages, which is not equal protection under the laws." DOMA does not prevent the federal government from recognizing anything, let alone same sex marriage. At most DOMA clarifies that any federal law pertaining to marriage refers to heterosexual marriage. However, Congress is still granted power to create new laws for same-sex marriage or update older laws to include same-sex marriage. 3. A) My opponent engages in circular reason. He says, "The fact that DOMA defines "marriage" a certain way does not mean anything, because the entire law is unconstitutional." However, the unconstitutionality of DOMA is what we are debating. He must first win the debate before he can show that DOMA's definition of marriage is meaningless. B) My opponent says, "If Massachusetts defines marriage as one way, it is the duty of all 50 states to recognize the marriage license." If DOMA is constitutional, then this statement is false. If DOMA is unconstitutional, then this statement is true. Until my opponent wins or loses the debate, this statement is meaningless. C) The proponent must show how DOMA "attempts to tell when marriage is allowed and when marriage is not specifically." DOMA does not force anything. If anything, without DOMA, states are forced "to tell when marriage is allowed and when marriage is not" when they are forced to recognize the marriage laws and benefits of another state. DOMA, if anything, is quite general as it leaves the decision up to the individual states. D) This appears to be a summary of points A, B, and C, to which I have responded. There is no doubt as to the controversial nature of DOMA. The idea that same sex marriage is not getting the same benefits and protections as heterosexual marriage generates a lot of heating emotion. But how we react or feel about DOMA should have no bearing on whether or not it's constitutional. My opponent clearly thinks that same-sex marriage ought to have the same protections as heterosexual marriage. No matter how convinced he may be of that need, it is not sufficient evidence as to the constitutionality of DOMA.