Gay Marriage Should Be Legal in the United States

I will begin my speech with a thank you to Tarzan and a quote from him: "First, the law must concern a compelling government interest. Second, the law must be narrowly tailored. Third, the law must be the least restrictive means to the end. Laws forbidding individuals from marrying a member of the same sex fail all three of these prongs." My opponent, the illustrious Tarzan, is completely right. Laws forbidding individuals the right to marry those of the same sex fail all three of those prongs..... My opponent would like a better law, something that would allow gays to marry freely. But let us for a moment examine what the new law would be. Law: Gay and straight marriage is legal within the United States. A couple of the same or opposing sexes may journey down to the courthouse and receive a license to marry. Now let's look at the prongs: "First, the law must concern a compelling government interest. Second, the law must be narrowly tailored. Third, the law must be the least restrictive means to the end." Does the law concern a compelling interest? No, not particularly, in fact there are alternatives that are much more compelling. Is the law narrowly tailored? Not particularly, in fact it's pretty broad and still excludes large swathes of the population. Is the law the least restrictive means to the end? Not at all, in fact it restricts and mandates that they must get a marriage license. In essence, my opponents case doesn't meet his own standards for this debate. That's going to be a bit of a problem for him because it means all I have to do is prove a compelling alternative. Here goes. ^.^ Haha ======================= The best way to fully uphold equality in the United States and uphold the strict scrutiny standard is through abolishing legal marriage. The alternative is that the federal and state governments will no longer have a hand in marriage what-so-ever and will discontinue to recognize marriages as a legal entity. Any marriage contract via the government and two individuals is hereby illegal. Contention 1: The most fair to all ====================== Why the government ever dabbled it's hand in marriage is a complete mystery to me. Marriage, as mandated legally, is a completely ludicrous idea. (Hey Ragnar_Rahl, I'm actually supporting a position that you might!) Marriage as it is today excludes large swaths of the population, gays being the example my opponent gives. But just legalizing gay marriage still excludes people. What of the trans gender society? What of people who are not born with a discernible genders? Or the people who have traits from multiple genders? This kind of law just further ostracizes them. Our society often doesn't accept people like those mentioned above because they are not recognized through societal constructs. They don't have a place in society, they can't be married or do many other things because they are genderless or multi-gendered. In some cases our society performs extensive surgeries on them when they are born in order to correct the "problem". These surgeries result in pain and occasionally death. Dismantling legal marriage allows for an even playing field for all. It dismantles a legal construct which stigmatizes individuals and flat out harms people. My argument is therefor that this would allow for greater acceptance and overall expression in our society. Contention 2: The Religious, Religions and God ============================== Your last opponent was mildly right on this one Tarzan. Marriages roots are definitely firmly embedded in religion. The Bible contains it's spcheel about how marriages are only between a man and a woman. It contains it's beautiful story about Saddam and Gamora (watch it here if you'd like http://www.break.com...). I don't necessarily agree with what the bible has to say on these subjects but I don't have to be a part of the church either. The church is it's own organization that can make it's own calls. The Federal Government SHOULD NOT be allowed to mandate what a church ritual must contain. Let's take an analogy, perhaps I form club. This club has a charter which will only allow cats to join it. Now say the federal government came to my door one day and demanded that dogs also be allowed. This would be quite a bit above the governments rights. In much the say way marriage has been defined by many religions as meaning one thing. When the federal government steps in, takes the idea, and then demands it be different, it oversteps it's boundaries. The ultimate argument here is that there would be backlash. I would even go so far as to say that there would be violent backlash by followers of certain churches if the government were to do this. On the other hand if the government abolishes marriage then the church can go on doing it's thing. The church can accept or reject gays if they want to but gays still have the ability to be recognized by the rest of society. And to go back to my analogy, the gays don't have to join my club, they can make their own if they feel like it. The Marriage Stigma ======================= My argument here is easy. Marriages have been given special recognition by the government. People in a marriage currently receive slightly different rights, tax breaks, etc.... In fact, in our current society, it's often looked on as strange if two people are "together" for a long time but not married. People occasionally assume that there must be some sort of problem with that couples relationship. In much the same way people often assume that marriage is somehow needed in our society and should be attained. My argument is that by abolishing marriage we as a society can reduce this stigma. I'd tell you that in a world where there is no "legal marriage" that has advantages and is condoned by the government, then people will be less likely to be together for any purpose other than that they like each other. The stigma that marriage is some life conquest to be attained would become seriously degraded. Ultimately this would mean that there would be less fights, less domestic violence, and just more thoroughly thought out decisions when choosing someone to spend significant amounts of life with. The Bottom Line ============ My opponent is right, not allowing gay marriage is flawed. But my opponent is also wrong, legal marriage, in itself, is inherently flawed. My opponent offers a better alternative than the status quo but his alternative is still harmful to society. I offer an alternative that alleviates the harms my opponents presents and simultaneously solves the harms of his advocacy. Having said all of this, I hope this is a great debate round. Enjoy!