Gay marriage is not a civil right

EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE Let me make something very clear here first. Bans on interracial marriage were deemed discriminatory because there were actual laws in writing that said it and directly targeted those relationships as a result. There are no laws that target and only say "Same sex couples are not allowed to get married". The only law that exist is marriage only being between a man and a woman as it always has been in America. The point is this is not about whether a law banning same sex marriage is constitutional. The legal issue that is before us is whether traditional marriage laws are based on invidious, arbitrary, discrimination. Discrimination: " The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights. Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right." [1] 1. Sex Equality Bans on interracial marriage were about the segregation of protected classes ,which has been deemed in the Brown decision to be another form of discrimination. When it comes to the Sexes, The Supreme Court has never ruled integration to be a form of discrimination. Thus, there is no discrimination between the sexes because men and woman can equally marry someone of the opposite sex. 2. Sexual Orientation Equality Traditional marriage laws do not violate the equal protection clause because providing a separate institution like civil unions to same sex couples is constitutional in this situation. For example, We have separate but equal situations for men and women that permeate our country ranging from restrooms, the military, prisons, sport teams, and even separate but equal public schools. We have this even though women are a minority that historically have been discriminated against. In a case called Vorcheimer v. Philadelphia school District, the Supreme Court ruled, that "Separate" is essentially "Equal". As long as each gender equally has a choice in going to both schools for both genders and that, interests in creating separateness based on the biological differences grounded in sex and GENDER are a legitimate state interests. Just like marriage with gays and straights in this situation.[2] In United States v. Virginia , the court agreed with this rationale as well: "Had Virginia made a genuine effort to devote comparable public resources to a facility for women, and followed through on such a plan, it might well have avoided an equal protection violation."[3]"it is not the 'exclusion of women' that violates the Equal Protection Clause, but the maintenance of an all-men school without providing any -- much less a comparable -- institution for women... It would be a sufficient remedy, I think, if the two institutions offered the same quality of education and were of the same overall caliber." Obviously, this is all because there is a fundamental difference between race and sex. This is why we no longer have bans on interracial marriage or have Jim Crow laws but still have and always accepted apartheid for the sexes and define marriage between one man and one woman. In order to show that discrimination exist between opposite sex and same sex couples, CON would have to provide a court case that establishes gay marriage to be a fundamental right as well. JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW Now, the existence of an infringement of a liberty or equal right would not automatically make a law unconstitutional. Nevertheless, Let's pretend for the sake of argument we are discriminating on same sex couples or gay individuals. I will even pretend that they are a suspect class ,which would require passing strict scrutiny from my side. Even if this is the case, my arguments would still pass the strict scrutiny test and justify the discrimination. I showed earlier how there's a compelling state interest for traditional marriage laws; now I will show how they are fully narrowly tailored: GAY MARRIAGE INTERFERES WITH THIS PURPOSE My argument, in a nutshell against gay marriage is this, where the possibility of natural children is nil in practice and/or in principle, the meaning of marriage is nil. If marriage is allowed between members of the same sex, then the concept of marriage has been emptied of content except to ask whether the parties love each other. There would be no reason to have public recognition of marriage. Let me explain precisely how: If the state were to call same sex unions a marriage in conjunction with opposite sex couples, the law would publicly declare that, from now on, Marriage can be understood apart from responsible procreation, natural parenthood, and connecting children to their own mothers and fathers. Since the well-being of children would no longer be a component of the concept of marriage, the social stigma within choices (like divorce, cohabitation, fatherlessness etc.), which serves as a natural deterrent for couples to disdain from, would decay and eventually be eliminated. This is because marriage ends up ONLY becoming a matter of choice between consenting adults who want to express their love a certain way. THE CLAIM THAT GAY MARRIAGE IS A CIVIL RIGHT Not only would the state no longer be able to encourage incoming generations of heterosexuals to create stable environments, as I previously explained, but it could end up discouraging them as well. If the traditional notion of marriage, which is defined as banning gay marriage by gay marriage advocates, continues to be compared or labeled as a form of slavery/bigotry akin to racism/homophobia and the state enforces this, then the likely hood of the next generation holding and practicing this idea of marriage in the future would be almost impossible. Remember, the studies very clearly show that people, who cohabit, compared to those who don't, have less traditional ideals or views of marriage. Then, according to other studies, they would not only be more likely to cohabit but more likely to divorce from prior cohabitation. Therefore, since same sex couples are not similarly situated, an important governmental distinction between the two relationships would be reasonable in order to continue advancing this interest in using the traditional definition to encourage procreation and rearing of children to take place within a marriage to each generation while the state can encourage homosexuals to adopt and stay together with civil unions. JUSTICE is applied EQUALLY in each case. Now, the burden of proof is shifted onto CON. He must provide a compelling state reason for how redefining the purpose of marriage benefits society as a whole. How is this good public policy? [1] http://www.law.cornell.edu... [2] http://law.justia.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...