Gay Marriage

Rc1: Being gay is natural!!! I agree. This is irrelevant to the topic. Rc2: Blacks and gays are the same in marriage! I will be providing the secular case towards gay marriage today. The secular case states the governments interests in the marriage business are confer economic benefits due to procreation. The benefits the government gives away are due to a reason as I would not give away anything for nothing, this implies they must have a reason to ban/allow SSM (same sex marriage). Their reasons are procreative, homosexual couples cannot for procreative type unions therefore this analogy is not comparable. The reason blacks where denied the right was hatred. They can still form procreate unions and fulfill the states interests, gays cannot therefore don't fulfill states interests, therefore this comparison does not hold up. Minorities CAN fulfill states interests, and gays cannot, therefore there is no comparison. Rc3: Religion This is irrelevant to the debate as I am not arguing on these grounds. I am an atheist, and I have not argued this argument. You refuted an argument that WAS NOT going to be brought up. This is not the reason we ban SSM, I will provide reasons later, as this is irrelevant I will proceed. Rc4: Constitutionality Before bringing in my court cases, I will refute the premise. To violate the equal protection clause, it must be discrimination. This is where it gets sticky. It is only discriminatory if it violates fundamental rights. For this debate I will claim it IS a right. Marriage is a right, but I differ from you on what marriage actually means. Now, if marriage is strictly defined as a man and a woman then no discrimination is occurring as this word does not apply to them. As another DD user in his paper states: "Thus, before we can claim that the traditional conception of marriage would discriminate against homosexual couples, we must first settle the issue of what marriage is. If same-sex "marriage" is not marriage to begin with, then no discrimination would be taking place, for homosexuals are not being unjustly denied something they deserve because they do not deserve it to begin with. It is up to advocates of same-sex marriage to argue for their account of marriage instead of just assuming it." [1] As it is not discrimination it cannot violate the equal protection clause. Now I must go into court cases, that are more viable then mere state courts. First state courts: Baker v. Nelson (Minnesota denies SSM on procreative and constitutional reasons) [2] Jones v. Hallahan (Kentucky defines marriage as one man one woman on procreative grounds, no constitutional breach) Singer v. Hara (discrimination on sexuality ok, not the same as race for procreative reasons, no constitutional breach) [4] Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning (did not violate 14th amendment to ban SSM) [5] Get the gist? The FEDERAL 8th circuit court agrees, banning SSM is not unconstitutional. [6] My case: Marriage and procreation have been an intertwined unit for a long time, and the government sees this. Their interests in marriage are in procreative reasons to further society as we know it. In many of the court cases listed above they said banning SSM was unconstitutional IF the state had no reason to ban it. The state said procreative reasons sir, the debated it, and the court said banning SSM was ok on procreative grounds, and the quoted passage I said above. Marriage has almost always been a state interest. People not forming procreative type unions are not repaying the governments expenses. The government gives out 1000s of benefits, and they are not doing that for no reason. Helping people is not a reason. It would help people if they cut taxes to 1%, but that's not in their interests, allowing SSM is not in their interests, therefore allowing SSM is unjust. The supreme court has ruled on this saying: "marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." [7] Homosexual couples can not ever procreate and form procreative TYPE unions, therefore are not creating a climate for responsible procreation. As homosexuals can never do this, there is no legitament reason to allow SSM. [1] "One man, one woman, defending traditional marriage" Tim Hsiao Florida state university. [2] Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185 (1971) [3] Jones v. Hallahan, 501 S.W.2d 588 (Ky. 1973) [4] Singer v. Hara, 522 P.2d 1187 (Wash. App. 1974) [5] Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 455 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2006) [6] http://www.frcblog.com... [7] RITES, RIGHTS, AND SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS: WHY AND HOW SHOULD THE LAW SUPPORT MARRIAGE? Maggie Gallagher