Gay Marriage

Throughout human history, gay people have engaged in committed, romantic relationships similar to heterosexual marriage. Whether or not the government recognizes same-sex marriage, those relationships have and would continue to exist. In this debate, I will be arguing that these relationships, the people within them, and the people their relationship affects (their families) deserve to have their unions recognized by government. To deny legal protections for SSM would be a gross injustice that is unwarranted, unconstitutional and unfair. ==To start, let's consider why people want to get married. There is a plethora of research showing significant benefits to tying the knot. Marriage is a contractual legal institution, and thus even without intimacy creates a significant connection to another person. This contractual expansion of resources coupled with sexual attraction and emotional intimacy explains why married people are more financially well off, happier and healthier than their non-married peers [1]. If marriage significantly benefits people's lives, it is logical to recognize that the lives of gay people (and thus society overall) would benefit from gay marriage. None of the highlighted benefits of marriage are limited to heterosexual couples. Without legalized SSM, gay people would still engage in gay relationships - relationships that have the potential problems but not the benefits associated with marriage. ==The benefits of a married couple logically extend to their children. If people are happier, healthier and more financially well off, the children of married couples will also be better off. In addition to the inherent benefits of coupling, the legal rights afforded to married couples extend to safeguard the family. In many cases, kids with gay parents have been hurt by their family not being protected in instances where adoption, the death tax and other legal issues arise [2, 3]. Con will be arguing in favor of children with gay parents not being protected by the law as their peers are, for reasons entirely out of their control. There are a lot of families headed by same-sex parents. Almost 40% of LGBT identifying individuals have had a child. Six million people in America have gay parents, and there are 125,000 gay headed households raising 220,000 kids under the age of eighteen [4]. Keep in mind these are old statistics and are likely much higher. Innumerable studies have been done, peer-reviewed and deemed credible by the science community to conclude that sexuality is irrelevant in terms of parenting abilities [5, 6]. If necessary, I will expand more on the credibility of these studies, however this should not be the focal point of the debate. Whether or not SSM was recognized by government, families headed by gay parents would still exist, and these families need legal protection. ==Supporting traditional family values is not a legal prerequisite for marriage. First let's consider that divorce is rampant among heterosexuals. Studies also show that the legitimization of marriage is the primary factor in considering the dissolution of all relationships. Social sanctioning of the relationship promotes longevity, indicating that the legalization and social acceptance of gay marriage will strengthen gay relationships and contribute to their success [7]. However the government does not deny the right to marriage based on the likelihood of the relationship's demise. Agreeing to have children is not a prerequisite for marriage either, even though many gay couples do. Some heterosexuals are infertile. Others simply don't want to have kids. Some couples are polyamorous. Others do not plan on being married forever. The point is, having a "traditional" lifestyle is not something the government requires when extending the legal protection of marriage. Heterosexual couples engage in questionable marital decisions all the time. Couples who marry young are twice as likely to end in divorce [8]. Still we allow young people the opportunity to get married, and receive the personal (and societal) benefits and protections that are afforded to more established married couples. Despite the supposition that government sanctions marriage to compel population growth and/or traditional values, the fact is even infertile, polyamorous straight people who are disinterested in parenthood have the right to marriage. Moreover many gay people have children (biological and otherwise). It would be logical to extend marriage rights and privileges to gay couples and their families as well. Gay people are forced to pay taxes like everybody else, regardless of whether or not they agree with policy. It is immoral and arguably tyrannical of government to single out this demographic as undeserving of the legal benefits and protections that are given to heterosexual couples, while still requiring of them the same obligations of citizenship. If gay adults are required to participate in and help fund government, then they should by extension be afforded the same benefits and protections. ==As for the legal contentions. .. The U. S. Supreme Court has ruled fourteen times that marriage is a fundamental right of all (adult) individuals [9]. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868. It states:"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "The 14th Amendment marked a large constitutional shift, which inhibited the state's rights to discriminate freely. The U. S. Supreme Court first applied this standard to marriage in Loving v. Virginia in 1967, when SCOTUS struck down a Virginia law banning interracial marriage. The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment [10]. The Due Process Clause says that states may not deprive persons of life, liberty, or property without due process of law [11]. This essentially means the laws on record will be scrutinized for legitimacy in order to ensure people's rights are being recognized and protected. Whereas the law used to uphold outdated and immoral policy in the past, due process considers both the law as-written as well as the spirit of the law. Indeed we have made many adjustments throughout history; recognizing black people as free citizens and giving women voting/property rights are just some examples. The Equal Protection Clause looks to guarantee that all people would have rights equal to those of other citizens [12]. Perry v. Schwarzenegger was a 2010 federal court decision in which Judge Vaughn R. Walker cited Loving v. Virginia to conclude that the Constitutional right to marry protects an individual's choice of marital partner [13]. Afterward the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this decision along with a handful of other cases. This makes sense if you extend the same logic of due process and equal protection for gay couples. SCOTUS ruled that there was no reason to exclude gay couples from the same protection as heterosexual couples in similar relationships, which SCOTUS has every legal right to do. The 14th Amendment posits that freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. Thus SSM is now the Constitutionally valid law of the land per the 14th Amendment and the Supremacy Clause. ==In conclusion, here is the breakdown of my arguments via syllogism. P1. People benefit from marriageP2. Gay people benefit from marriageP3. Kids benefit from having married parentsP4. Gay people have kids . : Ergo, gay people and their kids benefit from gay marriage P1. If more people and kids benefit from marriage, society benefits overallP2. Government sanctions marriage to benefit society overall P3. Pragmatically - government does not inhibit marriage based on probability of issues or failureP4. Morally - government does not impose traditional values on married families. : Ergo, government has no justifiable reason to inhibit SSM P1. Gay people pay taxes and abide by the duties of citizenshipP2. The Supreme Court acknowledges a person's right to marriageP3. The Constitution grants legal protections of Due Process and Equal ProtectionP4. The Supremacy Clause empowers the Supreme Court's decision. : Ergo, legalizing SSM is both the moral and legally righteous thing Con must distinguish why the legal institution of marriage is only beneficial for straight couples. He will have to explain how society overall does not benefit from having a greater population of happier and healthier people. Furthermore, Con must explain why gay relationships shouldn't be fostered with legal protection. Jerry will have to prove that children with gay parents should not have the security of legal protection with those that raise them and whom they know as their parents. Additionally Con will have to outline how the government ensures married couples abide by traditional standards, and/or how it regulates marriage on the basis of qualifying factors beyond mental capacity (age and sound mind). Otherwise he will have no reason to oppose SSM. Of course Con should explain why gay people should forfeit the right to marry their preferred adult partner as well. And finally, Jerry will have to present why the majority of Americans, Supreme Court and Constitution of the United States are all wrong in their assessment of supporting legalized recognition of SSM. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal. SOURCES: . http://tinyurl.com...