The US Supreme Court misinterpreted the equality clause when he legalized gay marriage nationwide

FRAMEWORK This is a fact debate. This is also a legal debate. Henceforth, in a fact debate, Pro always has the burden of proof. We are talking about whether an interpretation is true or untrue, and when one is going against what is accepted, then one must need to prove their burden. Moreover, we are not talking about a world if it were in a perfect state (should-situation), but rather, the world as it is now (is-situation). Hence, for Pro to win this debate, he must prove that, under Supreme Court regulations, that his case can be defended under close legal scrutiny. Lastly, we are talking about the Equality Clause, and not any other clauses. Although the Equality Clause is also related REBUTTALS a.) Social Productivity Test Although social recognition of marriages might explain how marriages ought to be recognized, the stare decisis nature of the Supreme Court is incoherent and inconsistent with the “social productivity” test. Pro, throughout his argument, argues that marriages are legally recognized as they “[are the] means by which humans come into existence.” Marriages are granted benefits as, “[the] existence of a society is publicly important,” but since homosexual unions are unable to reproduce, then they are not entitled to benefits. However, this argument suffers from many flaws. The first one being is that it has no precedent in American Constitutional Law. Precedents in American Constitutional Law are important, and are the main tool the SC (Supreme Court) uses to decide on cases. Past SC cases have shown that marriage was legally recognized and protected, not because it was socially productive, but because it was essential in the pursuit of happiness of the common man. This was noted in Loving v. Virginia (where laws criminalizing mixed-race marriages were struck down), when the SC decided “freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” [1] This quote goes to suggest that the SC never recognized marriage on the basis of society, but more so on the individuals. To go back further, in Maynard v. Hill (decided in 1888), the SC ruled that “[marriage is] a relation…as affecting the happiness of individuals, the first step from barbarism to incipient civilization.” [2] As these two quotes suggest, marriage has always been recognized not because of the societal productivity that it produces, but because it is essential in the pursuit of liberty and happiness of men. Apart from this, one must note a complete lack of precedent legal cases quoted by Pro, signifying that his arguments are made a priori to any precedent SC cases. Moreover, such judgment is also wholly inconsistent with cases involving married couples that have been voluntarily sterilized and/or are using contraception of any forms. Although Pro may attack the need of recognizing none “socially productive” marriages, the Supreme Court doesn’t. In Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court attacked and struck down Connecticut’s “Comstock Law” (which banned contraception) as it infringes with the right to privacy protected in the First Amendment. [3] This implies that, even if a type of union is not socially productive for society’s existence, the government and the public as “socially useful” often recognize it. Moreover, this also suggests that the social productivity test has never been very much of an issue to the SC in general. Before I go on, I would like to comment Pro’s assertion that “the equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among groups but only "equal application" of the laws.” However, is marriage not a law? Does marriage not necessarily have a set of laws governing it? The opposition seems to think that the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges was decided on the basis de facto equality. However, SC’s decision was not only based on de facto equality case, but that of de jure equality. In the syllabus of the case, we are told, “The challenged laws…abridge central precepts of equality…Same-sex couples are denied benefits afforded opposite-sex couples and are barred from exercising a fundamental right.” [4] In conclusion, as precedent cases have shown the a priori interpretation of Pro to be inconsistent and incoherent with the doctrine of stare decisis, then there can be no rational ground that we should accept this interpretation at all. b.) Precedent Definitions The precedent definition of marriages here make no difference to the case, as the definition of marriage has always been in flux and the concept of marriage has changed from the beginning of time. Pro, throughout the argument, made references to precedent definitions of marriages. Pro argues, “[the] Supreme Court implicitly negated precedent definitions” in deciding in favor of gay marriages. Pro also argues, “the law has every right to define marriage as between a man and a woman,” which leads him to conclude against the justness and the correctness of the SC interpretation. However, the definition of marriage has always been in flux throughout the years. For example, in 18th Century, marriage was held as wholly male-dominated. Blackstone noted “as [the husband] is to answer for her misbehavior, the law thought it reasonable to entrust him with this power of restraining [his wife].” [5] This definition gradually changes with the time and with societal changes. By the 1970s, mixed-race marriages were not seen as abnormal. [1] And as Justice Kennedy notes, “[when] new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.” [4] Moreover, even if marriage had an essentialist definition, it would not be the “male-female” definition the opposition presents. This is most clear when, in United States v. Windsor, the SC struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, which attempted to define marriage as a “legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" on the basis that “Responsibilities…enhance the dignity and integrity of the person…DOMA contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not other couples, of both rights and responsibilities.” [6] Rather, the Supreme Court defines marriage as the union between two-persons which “responds to the universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to find no one there.” [4] To conclude, since the definition of marriage has always been in flux, and since current definitions agreed by the Supreme Court is not the “male-female” definition, we should strike down this objection as invalid. CONCLUSION Since Pro’s main case suggests incorrect things about the nature of the legal recognition of marriage, and since Pro’s main case attempts to build on an unsupported and arbitrary definition not found in any SC jurisprudential documents, then Pro’s case for the reinterpretation of the equality clause fails to be upheld. CITATIONS: [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu... [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu... [3] https://www.law.cornell.edu... [4] http://www.supremecourt.gov... [5] http://lonang.com... [6] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...