Civil unions are unconstitutional and therefore no substitute for the legalisation of gay marriage.

My opponent claims that I have ignored him. It is unfortunate that he should think so. I have re-read his first post time and time again. In the body of his argument, there is not a single resolution presented. Rather, it consists of assertions and contentions. The question that then comes to mind is: Just what is my opponent seeking to prove? The topic of this debate is "Civil unions are unconstitutional and therefore no substitute for the legalisation of gay marriage. " The topic is not "gay marriage should be legalised". Rather, the topic alleges that civil unions are unconstitutional and therefore they are no substitute for the legalisation of gay marriage. In absence of any other stated resolution in the body of my opponent's first post, it is clear that the topic itself states his resolution; that it states the proposition he seeks to prove. I have demonstrated in my reply that Civil Unions are not unconstitutional. They are not unconstitutional because any person can enter into a civil union, no matter what gender, sexual orientation, race etc (s)he is. If civil unions are not unconstitutional then my opponent's resolution must fail. I now address his rebuttals in their order. 1. The Equal Protection Clause has not been violated. The reason for this is that the Equal Protection Clause protects the individual. It stipulates that each individual is to be given equal protection. It does NOT stipulate that every type of institution should have equal protection to that of other institutions. Thus, there is no requirement that marriage and civil union should be treated equally. There's no discrimination against any individual in a civil union as all persons of all races and both genders and all orientations are free to enter into one. There is no issue of separation in civil unions legislation. The legislation is all-inclusive. 2. Whether or not civil unions are equal to marriages is not a question that could sufficiently prove my opponent's resolution. He has sought to prove that civil unions are unconstitutional and THEREFORE no substitute for the legalisation of marriage. Hence, his resolution must fail if any one of the following is true: a) civil unions are not unconstitutional; b) civil unions are a substitute for the legalisation of gay marraige; c) civil unions are unconstitutional AND are no substitute for the legalisation of gay marriage but the two facts are not causally related. I have shown that civil unions are not unconstitutional. Therefore my opponent's resolution must fail. 3. As per (2) above, the question of whether civil unions are equal to marriages is not sufficient to prove my opponent's resolution. I will, however, point out, that the law does not state that gay couples (or any couples) must be treated "equally". The law does state that a state cannot discriminate against A PERSON. This does not protect couples, families, or other groups (though it may protect bodies corporate). It is true that the Supreme Court cases sited dictate that separate is not equal. I again repeat that the institution of civil unions is not separatist as it is free for any person to enter. 4. (The unnumbered paragraph in my opponent's argument). My opponent has not pasted any dictum from Loving vs Virginia. He has not showed that the case has stated that a person can marry whom they choose. Having said that, that is not relevant. My opponent's resolution is (partially) that CIVIL UNIONS are not constitutional. Loving vs Virginia has no direct application to civil unions as it was a case on a person's right to marry. If, however, my opponent wishes to apply the same principle to civil unions, he is perfectly entitled to. The argument, when applied to a civil union, would be that the effect of Loving vs Virginia is such that any person is free to enter into any civil union. However, that argument would still not assist my opponent as there is no evidence presented by him of any restrictions in civil union legislation that would preclude any person from entering any civil union (s)he wished to. The 14th amendment does NOT necessitate equality generally. There is nothing in the Amendment that would suggest that all types of institutions are to be treated equally. That would be impossible and impractiable. The Amendment merely gives an individual the right to be equally protected under the law. Finally, I again repeat that I have not ignored anything. I have rebutted my opponent's argument that civil unions are unconstitutional. It is not my job to write his arguments for him. It is his task to prove his resolution. I say he has not done so. If my opponent wishes to have an argument based on law, it would probably assist his cause if he did not go about it by challenging the constitutionality of a piece of legislation without showing a single constitutional deficiency in it.