Prop 8. is constitutional

I'm going to argue my opponent's case accordingly: move from his case and then toward my own. Before continuing, however, I must emphasize the scenario of Proposition 8 when it was enacted in 2008. A California Supreme Court had ruled in the state that same-sex marriage must be legalized, redefining marriage to include same-sex couples. What Proposition 8 did was put on referendum whether or not the definition should once again be changed only to include heterosexual couplings. [PRO Case]Burden of Proof and Thesis: My opponent establishes burdens on my case that are completely contradictory to my position as the CON outlined by my Observation 2, an observation he didn't argue against and is extended across the flow (meaning that judges should not allow my opponent to argue against it). His thesis is that because there is compelling state interest to ban gay marriage, Proposition 8 is Constitutional under the court proceedings that he had listed before. He then states that it is my burden to prove that the state has compelling interest to approve of same-sex marriage, even though as the CON, he's making me use the criterion for determination of constitutionality that he uses in his thesis. Essentially, he makes an attempt to apply his thesis's criterion to be the evaluator for the debate even though we're looking at constitutionality. If anything, my burden as the CON is to prove that there is not sufficient state interest in order to trump any existent right to gay marriage or constitutional protections thereof. I, again, substantiate this claim with the O2 my opponent did not argue against."What is Marriage?": Throughout my opponent's case, he makes the argument about what the definition of marriage is and what the intention of it thereof is and adds that gay marriage doesn't squeeze within the scope of this definition and intention. As I argued in my Observation 1 however (also extended and unattested), this entire debate is about changing the definition of marriage. He's arguing for the definition he provides through the very same definition that was subject to change and was subject to be changed to after the passage of Prop 8. This is circular reasoning. He's trying to protect the definition that Prop 8 was going to change marriage to with the definition that Prop 8 was going to change marriage to. It is for my O1 and simple logic of the scenario that I have no obligation to explain what marriage "is" because what marriage "is" is what's subject to change. Judges, remember again that pretty much my opponent's ENTIRE case rests on this singular thesis. My concern is not with the matters of the state, but with the Constitution. Compelling state interest: The arguments and reasoning that my opponent holds to be compelling state interests don't hold water for the following reasons: (1) My opponent has only proven why heterosexual marriage is practical for society, but not why these reasons are ones why gay marriage should be prohibited. My opponent in no way explains why the interest of responsible procreation or child rearing will be harmed or contradicted by allowing SSM. What it seems to me here is that there is compelling reason to protect heterosexual marriage, but not enough to prohibit gay marriage. The big argument on this case is the encouragement for procreation, but my opponent has no evidence of why that will be harmed and provides a source as to why gays cannot make for child rearing under the assumption all gay couples want children. Furthermore, this study included only the information that it sampled on people in general whose parent(s) has had a same-sex attraction, not a model of of a gay parenting in totality, which has been shown to be just as effective in quality as a heterosexual relationship [1-3]. (2) My opponent uses every resource in the book to protect the idea that California state government has an interest in procreation and child rearing except California itself. My opponent has in no way proven that California has this interest at all for their marriages. (3) My opponent holds procreation to be a Holy Grail of sorts, even though it is something that needs to be controlled because of possible overpopulation, decline of resources, and other problems that come from uncontrolled procreation. If it's really true that gay marriage hinders this, it is practical anyways environmentally [4], a concern that the state of California actually HAS proven to be concerned about.[CON Case]Sub-point 1a: My opponent states that I need to prove that gay marriage is a right, but part B of this sub-point was dedicated toward explaining that there is a natural right to gay marriage and that the state of California is providing an obstruction to a natural right. My opponent in no way argued against that, meaning that this is extended across the flow. Once again, do not allow my opponent to argue against this in the next rebuttal. He also failed to make any argument against part A explaining that Proposition 8 leaves gay couples with an unreasonable decision, violating non-domination principle in fair decisions and violating a gay couple's right to a fair decision. Also extend this across the flow and do not permit my opponent to argue against it. Part A also shows us that California certainly does have some interest in providing benefits for gay couples, meaning that this contributes to the very state issues that my opponent is trying to protect. Sub-point 1b: My opponent goes from dropping arguments to complete strawman by bringing up the right to gay marriage in my explanation as to why Prop 8 violates the 14th Amendment. In the explanation for the 14th Amendment, I wasn't arguing that the people had violated a fundemental right (which would fit in the Due Process Clause, and not the Equal Protection Clause). I was arguing that the conduction of Prop 8 had a basis in discrimination. My opponent provides many many reasons why gay marriage should be prohibited, but ultimately, the basis for Proposition 8 rested in the people who voted in it. The question here is: what was the basis for the decisions for "yes" in Prop 8? Even if one person discriminated, there proves that there was a basis in discrimination for the passing of Prop 8, constituting a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The same applies for any law passed on irrational reasoning, as my evidence had sustained. In both cases, I have proven that such irrational or discriminatory reasoning for passing Prop 8, meaning that it violated the 14th Amendment. This is because the PEOPLE decided on the issue to make this change. My opponent argued nothing in this sub-point, meaning it's extended as well. [Conclusion]My opponent's rebuttal has addressed nothing in my case, and the things he dropped are the very things that prove wrong everything he said in his previous rebuttal, answered his questions, and proved that his case is a big load of circular reasoning. We're arguing about whether or not the definition of marriage should've been changed, and my opponent's entire case is based on the very definition arguing that marriage should be changed to. My opponent has not proved that passing or keeping gay marriage would in anyway counteract with state interest. My opponent hasn't even proved that there is such a state interest for procreation or child rearing. For these reasons, I urge a CON vote. [1] http://www.webmd.com... [2] http://www.time.com...;[3] http://www.usatoday.com...;[4] http://www.sevenwords.org...