Prop 8 is Constitutional

My opponent states he has provided "two U.S. supreme court cases (Baker and Lawrence) showing that there is no right to gay marriage." This is false, as the U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled against same-sex marriage. The first case my opponent cites, Baker v. Nelson, is NOT a U.S. Supreme Court case - it is a Minnesota Supreme Court case. My opponent has misrepresented the facts here by trying to make the ruling of a state court the equivalent of the U.S. Supreme Court. As for Lawrence v. Texas, that indeed was a U.S. Supreme Court case, but it ruled that same-sex activity is legal in every U.S. state. It says absolutely nothing to suggest that same-sex marriage should be banned. If anything, it suggests the opposite by demonstrating the same-sex sexual activity is legal under the U.S. Constitution. My opponent argues that marriage "indirectly encourages us to procreate." Therefore, my opponent concedes that procreation is not essential to marriage. My opponent continues: "the law does not make us do right from wrong." If the law does not force us to do right from wrong, then why should it criminalize same-sex marriage? My opponent concedes that the law allows each individual to raise a family outside of marriage. All of these facts suggest that same-sex marriage is a legal right of individuals, as the "capacity to procreate" is not essential to marriage. In fact, my opponent states this much when he writes: "I never said the willingness or capacity to procreate was essential to marriage." My opponent concedes the debate on this point alone, as it exposes not only the many inconsistencies in my opponent's position, it also undermines his case. My opponent claims that same-sex marriage "interferes" with the "purpose of marriage." What is this so-called purpose that my opponent speaks of? My opponent says the purpose of marriage is to "encourage" procreation. This purpose completely ignores and neglects the many other purposes to marriage, nor does it justify the many legal benefits granted citizens as a result of marriage... but suppose we grant my opponent that this is the purpose of marriage. So what? How does same-sex marriage interfere with THIS purpose? It doesn't, because same-sex couples can procreate and raise children. In fact, the evidence suggests that same-sex couples are ALREADY raising children. My opponent argues that marriage is supposed to encourage "natural" procreation. What does "natural" procreation even mean? The word "natural" refers to anything that is not magical or supernatural. The ability of same-sex couples to procreate and raise children is perfectly natural. The fact that no one considers taking away children from gay parents (my opponent has not said they should, so I imagine he concedes this point) demonstrates that gay parents are legally allowed to procreate and raise children. It is perfectly natural. But what if it same-sex procreation and child-rearing isn't natural? Suppose we grant my opponent that much. It still does not follow that same-sex marriage is unconstitutional - the U.S. Constitution NEVER says anything about marriage having to be "natural" in this way. In fact, marriage is explicitly a social contract, an "artificial" union between two people, designed to give certain legal benefits that aid in raising a child, providing a legal caretaker, and other such benefits. My opponent argues against the analogy between the history of marriage and history of racism, but I never made this comparison. My opponent asks: "Is CON also claiming invidious, arbitrary discrimination against sexual orientation of those past decisions from U.S. supreme court?" If the U.S. Supreme Court has ever ruled against same-sex marriage (it hasn't), or if the U.S. Supreme Court ever does rule against it, then the U.S. Supreme Court will be engaging in discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. That is a fact. Whether this discrimination would be "arbitrary" or "justified" is the very question we are debating, but for some reason, my opponent seems unable to understand the difference between "arbitrary" and "justified" discrimination. My opponent seems to think the U.S. Supreme Court is not liable to error, or has never made any mistakes regarding their interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, but this is obviously false. There have been many U.S. Supreme Court decisions that have been overturned because they were deemed unconstitutional. So my opponent's arguments do nothing but expose his misunderstanding of the issues at stake in this debate as well as a misunderstanding of the legal system in general. My opponent writes: "If my opponent says "no" or "I don't know" to such a claim, then how can he say or know prop 8 was based on animus when prop 8 proponents were only trying to conform to the U.S. Supreme Courts in the past? Just something to think about while you vote." I urge my opponent and readers to take a look at the paragraph immediately preceding this one, which answers the question in two ways: saying "yes" AND pointing out that the question is irrelevant to this debate because it conceals the real issue at stake - arbitrary discrimination as opposed to justified discrimination. My opponent concludes by saying this is a debate about what "IS" under the law. I agree, which is why I suggest my opponent refer to the U.S. Constitution instead of referring to a tradition and history of marriage that have nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution. I have gone through each of my opponent's arguments. I have responded carefully to each, showing the flaws in each argument, through the debate. I'm glad it's over, as most of my opponent's arguments are misunderstandings, straw men, red herring, and other such things. The resolution is negated.