Proposition 8 should not be passed.

So I think I can make a rather brief rebuttal and still handily win this round... What is my burden in this debate To prove that at least for some people voting for this proposition is a valid and purely rational action. Now lets assume you are a person who is personally opposed to gay marriage for a variety of reasons ( religious reasons being paramount). My opponent never responded to my basic statement that at least some people have such valid personal or social reasons. Why should you vote for the ballot measure 1) Even if it does not pass you have consciously voted with your personal beliefs 2) The law is passed and the supreme court never rules on it or decides on it..This law stays on the books and is enforced 3) The law passes and the supreme court rules that it is Constitutional. In an increasingly polarized and conservative court especially if John McCain wins the presidency and gets to appoint justices, this is a real possibility. 4) This law passed and the Supreme Court rules it is unconstitutional. You have still lost nothing becuase the court could have taken a test case from any of the many other states that hold such beliefs. In examples 2, 3 and 4 you have asserted a very powerful act of the peoples will. In examples 2 and 3 you actually get the result you want from voting. Just based on these grounds I think I clearly and logically win the round. ________________________________________________ Just to respond to a bit of the other stuff. My main argument is that to say a constitutional ammendment should not pass from our view is folly. We may not like the result of this amendment but an equally large quantity of people do like the theoretical results if they voted in favor for it. In the state of california they have a system of ballot measures that means that this people's will is the highest source of authority within the state in determining what laws are desirable. My opponent uses the 18th amendment as an example, but the truth is that the 18th amendment was a social experiment that would not have clearly not worked. For it to have passed it was obviously the will of the majority of the people in the country at the time. It may not have worked ultimately but it was a rational attempt and completely valid under our governmental structure. In other words, for something to be a rational law requires two things 1) It must be placed by a legitimate societal/legislative mechanism ( Passing a bill, amending a constitution etc.) 2) It must be viewed as desirable by at least a portion of those responsible for passing it. 3) In our system with a supreme court we have a third mechanism in which laws on any level lower than a federal amendment can be deemed irrational in relation to the highest laws of the land. This is a case by case basis that we can not predict when voting on most laws. The results of a law my ultimately be folly and may be overturned as the 18th amendment was. However as I said and was never responded to, the word irrational aspires to a higher standard than merely wrong. My opponent fails to understand the fundamental philosophy of law that makes our country function and shows a disdain for direct democracy that he never truly validates. The con side clearly wins this debate