LGBT couples should be allowed marrage licenses

The 14th amendment guarantees all citizens the right to equal protection and due process of law. My opponent argues that it does not provide protection of individuals but only equal protection in implementation of laws. This is not the case because the clause specifically states "No state shall make [see below] or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;. .. " [below] "No state shall [make] or enforce any law abridging. .. " Here we can see that the clause clearly states that no state shall make any law abridging the privileges of citizens of the United States. We can then infer that the equal protection clause was intended to provide equal protection to all citizens residing within the jurisdiction of the governmental body crafting the law. Traditional marriage laws enforce that heterosexual marriage is traditional and homosexual marriage is not. Therefore, for the homosexuals whom are not allowed to marry, they are considered non traditional and that then violates the equal protection clause. A state crafting a law that does not allow homosexual marriage when having that union of marriage is required within that persons pursuit of life and liberty is then in violation of the due process clause of the 14th amendment when preventing such marriage is not within the legitimate interest of the state. Furthermore, a state crafting a law that abridges the privilege of a homosexual to marry whom they choose is then in violation of the due process clause within the 14th amendment. My opponent argues that there is legitimate state purpose to a traditional marriage law by stating that it promotes responsible procreation. The responsible procreation argument my opponent is making does not take into account the fact that same-sex couples can procreate through assisted-reproduction and adoption. If what is desired of responsible procreation is to increase stability within the family unit, then the state has the same interest in encouraging such procreation to take place in the context of same-sex marriage. Also, inmates can not procreate, yet they can still marry. Infertile people whom have no chance of ever producing offspring, can still marry. This shows that the government does not regulate marriage based solely upon procreation as my opponent argues. My opponents second point holds no merit because a traditional marriage law would not decrease the number of adoptions already taking place, nor would it prevent people incapable of procreating with the wish to have offspring from adopting. Also, studies from 1981 to 1994, including 260 children reared by either heterosexual mothers or same-sex mothers after divorce, found no differences in intelligence, type or prevalence of psychiatric disorders, self-esteem, well-being, peer relationships, couple relationships, or parental stress[1]. Another study of 37 children of 27 divorced lesbian mothers and a similar number of children of heterosexual mothers found no differences in behavior, adjustment, gender identity, and peer relationships. The notion that preserving the institution of marriage must mean that same-sex couples can not get married and that not allowing homosexuals to marry can only in a fallacy influence heterosexuals to not have children out-of-wedlock and rear them to subsequently marry. It has been 11 years since the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that same-sex couples had the right to marry in that state. The marriage rate in that state and across the nation has been falling since 1990. In 2004 when the ban was lifted on same sex marriage, the state saw a marriage rate increase for the next 5 years until 2008 when the marriage rate steadied out again[2]. The states overturning of its ban on same-sex marriage has not abnormally affected its marriage or divorce rate for the worse. Massachusetts divorce rate has gone down since it overturned its ban. In fact, Nevada, a state with a ban on same-sex marriage, has the highest divorce rate in the country[3]. Assuming that because the wording in the Goodridge v. Department of Public Health finding holds the words "share in the freedom to marry" means heterosexual marriage is the way marriage has always been is a very large step to take and is not backed up by any factual evidence. There are numerous cultures all throughout history that practiced same-sex marriage far before our country was consummated. Same-sex marriage laws are not neutral on their face. They discriminate based upon the persons gender by defining marriage between a man and a woman. I have shown in the points above that the state does not have legitimate interest in keeping same-sex couples from obtaining a marriage license. In closing, homosexuals have the right to marriage under the 14th amendments due process and equal protection clauses. There is much supporting evidence that children raised by same sex parents do not show any abnormality's versus those raised by heterosexual parents[4]. Marriage is not directly linked to procreation as I stated before. Inmates and infertile people can not procreate, yet they can still marry. Precedent is set for my case by the ruling in UNITED STATES V. WINDSOR. So in conclusion, traditional marriage laws are unconstitutional and homosexuals should be granted marriage licenses. I look forward to the next round. Sources: . http://www.law.cornell.edu... . http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu... . https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov... . http://www.goldencradle.org... [1] . http://www.webmd.com... [2] . http://www.cdc.gov... [3] . http://www.cdc.gov... [4] . http://people.virginia.edu...