Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that eliminated same sex marriage in California, is unconstitutional because it violates the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the federal constitution. Furthermore, it causes irreparable harm to the gay citizens of California and the children that they raise. In addition, the discriminatory nature of this proposition is not just made evident by its effects on society, but also by the people and groups who went out of their way to support it. In 2008, a group of eccentric and philistine religious charlatans, with the aid of volunteers, money and mystical underwear, managed to put this measure over the top and into California's constitution. [1] Simply put, Proposition 8 was passed by religious leaders and voters who opposed gay marriage because it was not in accordance with their various faiths. Nevertheless, religious concerns and private moral disapproval of something are neither a compelling nor rational basis for discriminating against any group of people, including gays and lesbians. ====> A Treatise on The Nature of Religion and Law: Why Proposition 8 Violates The United States' Constitution <==== C1: Proposition 8 unnecessarily harms a vulnerable minority group. Proposition 8 needlessly harms gay people and the children that they raise. To reaffirm this point, Anne Peplau, a relationship psychologist at UCLA, has argued that individuals gain physical, psychological and social benefits from being married. [2] Accordingly, governmental measures that eliminate marriage for gay citizens also deny them these benefits. Likewise, Ilan H. Meyer, an associate professor of clinical socio-medical sciences at Columbia University, has described how Proposition 8 undermines the mental health of gays and lesbians by imposing a "structural stigma" on their relationships. [3] According to Dr. Meyer, "Marriage is a common, socially approved goal." As such, he argues that Proposition 8 stigmatizes gay relationships by stating that they are unworthy of the status of marriage. In other words, Proposition 8 serves no other purpose than to delegitimize gay relationships and treat them as inferior to heterosexual unions. For these reasons, it should be obvious that Proposition 8 unjustifiably harms gay people and their children. Additionally, leading experts from the World's top medical, psychological and scientific institutions all concur that Proposition 8 negatively impacts various social structures. Included in these groups are the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the Child Welfare League of America, the North American Council on Adoptable Children and the Canadian Psychological Association, all of whom support same sex marriage. [4] Indeed, in the absence of any evidence that contradicts the mainstream social science on this subject, ballot initiatives that ban gay marriage across the United States are little more than invidious and arbitrary forms of discrimination. Moreover, recent advances in psychology and sociology have exposed the rather dubious link between sexual orientation and parental quality. In particular, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the National Association of Social Workers have stated that, "There is no scientific basis for distinguishing between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with respect to the legal rights, obligations, benefits, and burdens conferred by civil marriage.... Empirical research has consistently shown that lesbian and gay parents do not differ from heterosexuals in their parenting skills, and their children do not show any deficits compared to children raised by heterosexual parents.... [I]f their parents are allowed to marry, the children of same-sex couples will benefit not only from the legal stability and other familial benefits that marriage provides, but also from elimination of state-sponsored stigmatization of their families." [5] Clearly, if one is being impartial about the evidence, one must conclude that gay parents do not differ in any significant way from their heterosexual counterparts. C2: Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The basis for the supposed justification of Proposition 8 is grounded on unsupported religious beliefs about sexuality and gender roles that do not advance any sort of accompanying secular purpose. As if to prove this point, the Catholic Cardinal of Los Angeles Roger Mahony released a statement that said, "Those of us who supported Prop 8 and worked for its passage did so for one reason: We truly believe that marriage was instituted by God for the specific purpose of carrying out God's plan for the world and human society. Period." [6] And even though some proponents of this measure have decided to frame their opposition to same sex marriage in decidedly secular terms, the religious underpinnings of their opposition could not be any clearer. Surely, Proposition 8 does nothing more than advance the private religious view that heterosexual couples are superior to homosexual couples. However, as the evidence shows, straight couples are not superior to gay couples; instead, they are equal, as indicated by every available metric. Consequently, Proposition 8 violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment by unfairly disadvantaging gay people and by failing to treat them equally. C3: Proposition 8 violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. By unfairly denying gay citizens the liberty to marry the person of their choice, Proposition 8 is in clear violation of the due process clause of the 14th amendment. In Loving V. Virginia, the United States Supreme Court ruled that marriage is a fundamental right. [7] Thus, all citizens in the United States are constitutionally entitled to marry the person of their choice unless the state has a compelling reason to prevent those marriages. However, Proposition 8 simply does not survive the strict scrutiny standard of judicial review, the most rigorous form of judicial review. [8] Undeniably, Proposition 8 does not advance any compelling government interest, and it is deleterious to several very essential government interests - namely, the proliferation of societal health and child welfare. Proposition 8 is, therefore, in violation of the due process clause, since it unreasonably deprives gay citizens of their fundamental right to marry. ::Conclusion:: As the record clearly shows, there are no valid reasons, religious or otherwise, that can justify the discrimination that Proposition 8 forces onto the citizens of California. Indeed, upon close scrutiny, the arguments used to support this measure amount to little more than shallow smokescreens of sophistry purposefully designed to conceal an unspoken religious animus towards gays and lesbians. But animus is neither a rational nor acceptable basis for singling out a certain group and treating them differently under the law. Because Proposition 8 fails to advance any legitimate government interest with its discrimination, and because it interferes with California's constitutional obligation to treat its citizens equally in issuing marriage licenses, the only reasonable conclusion which can be drawn is that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. Sources and Guidelines: http://www.debate.org...