Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

Let me address the above arguments in turn. 1. Why does my opponent claim that a law prohibiting marriage of persons of the same hair colour would be unconstitutional? Sure, it might be unreasonable. Sure, it might appear insane and irrational. But the Constitution does not prohibit unreasonable or even insane laws. There is no "reasonableness clause" in the US Constitution. I quote from wiki: *Of course, the practical implication of this principle is that a court cannot strike down a statute, even if it recognizes that the statute is obviously poorly drafted, irrational, or arises from legislators' corrupt motives, unless the flaw in the statute rises to the level of a clear constitutional violation.* http://en.wikipedia.org... Justice Stevens has (very rightly) made this very point in the case of NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, et al., PETITIONERS v. MARGARITA LOPEZ TORRES et al. I quote His Honour: *...But as I recall my esteemed former colleague, Thurgood Marshall, remarking on numerous occasions: "The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws."* http://www.law.cornell.edu... The Court has no constitutional basis for striking down a law merely because it is unreasonable, irrational or even insane. The only question is its constitutionality. Would a law prohibiting same hair-colour marriage be unconstitutional? Perhaps. But, if so, not because of its unreasonableness or irrationality. My opponent is right. The fact that a law applies equally to all persons does not mean that the law is reasonable. But, as I stated above, even if the law is not reasonable, this is not a valid constitutional ground for a challenge. C1. My opponent claims that Proposition 8 unnecessarily harms a vunlerable minority group. It's arguable whether homosexuals can be classed as a minority or as vulnerable. But that aside, the very issue is irrelevant. My opponent has failed to demonstrate that there's any Constitutional prohibition against harming a minority group. The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause merely require that each PERSON be given equal protection by the law. Proposition 8 does not breach this. It treats everyone equally. A heterosexual, a homosexual, a polygamy-sympathiser, a man wanting to marry his mother or his pet are all treated the same way. They can only marry a human and only one human and only a human of the opposite sex. Unless my opponent demonstrates otherwise (applicable case law would be of assistance), there's no breach of either Clause. C2 and C3 . My opponent claims that I have failed to demonstrate that the rational basis scrutiny can't be withstood by Proposition 8. But my opponent has not made a single argument as to why the rational basis test should even apply. Rational basis only applies to cases where discrimination exists prima facie. A law that says "homosexuals are not allowed to get married" would be such a case. It would attack a person's right to get married. But Proposition 8 does not do this. It allows everyone to marry, as explained above. It is in fact me who refuses to rebut arguments that have never been made. The onus is on my opponent. I say he has failed to meet that onus so far. Slippery Slope. I am not suggesting that allowing committed gay couples to marry will lead to bestiality and incest (nb, is it proposed that ONLY COMMITTED gay couples would be allowed to marry?). I am asking my opponent whether he would be opposed to allowing people to marry animals or to marry more than one person or to marry their mothers. If my opponent agrees that this should be allowed then I am happy to agree that individual choice should be given such grave weight as to change the millenia-old meaning of marriage. Hence, if my opponent agrees with me, we can settle the debate. My argument about fertility. The relevance of that argument was on the point that Proposition 8 is not discriminatory against gays. It discriminates against everyone equally, as explained in my first paragraph of this round. Judge Walker was in error when he claimed that only gays would marry a member of the same sex. You don't have to love someone to marry them and you don't have to be sexually attracted to someone to marry them. Marriage draws with it a number of benefits and one can easily envisage two friends of the same sex deciding ot get married simply for convenience. After all, people of opposite sexes do that already. It is therefore incorrect that only gay people would marry members of the same sex. And the upshot of this is that Proposition 8 does not discriminate against gays. It merely discriminates against those who wish to marry members of the opposite sex. It discriminates against a choice and not against a person. There's nothing in the Constitution that protects choice. The two Clauses in question only protect people. And of course if we are to grant protection to choice then we should allow bestialists to marry their pets etc etc etc. Why not? History. My opponent's point about history of discrimination is not relevant. The fact that ancient Jews discriminated against gays (for example) has precious nothing to do with the question of whether Proposition 8 is consitutional. In ancient Greece it was considered untrendy NOT to have a homosexual lover (particularly young boys were in demand). There was discrimination against non-bisexuals. Similar history can be seen in ancient Rome. And yet marriage has always been between members of the opposite sex. My opponent's resorts to history are irrelevant. In conclusion. My opponent has not made any references to any law. He has not mentioned a single legal principle that would extend the Due Process Clause or the Equal Protection Clause to apply to groups of individuals. Each clause, on its face, protects THE INDIVIDUAL. And Proposition 8 provides equal protection to every single individual in California. This is not to say that there are no authorities that do in fact extend the application of the two Clauses to apply to groups. But in the absence of a presentation of any legal principle by my opponent, he has failed to discharge the onus. He has failed to prove his case. I note that he does make reference (very vaguely and without sufficient detail of the principles involved) to Judge Walker's decision. But Judge Walker's decision is pending appeal. And Judge Walker himself has stayed his own decision until the appeal is resolved. His decision is not binding law at this point. In a legal argument, the usual flow is this: 1. Present the facts 2. Present the applicable law 3. Apply the law to the facts My opponent, with respect, has failed to discharge his onus on all three points. In particular, he has failed to present the applicable law. Rather, his argument seems to rely on a gut instinct, "it is unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional". Well, that's not the case. The Constitution does not prohibit the States from passing stupid laws.