The Federal Defense of Marriage Act is Unconstitutional

I must extend much appreciation to my opponent as he is both a challenging debater and remarkably well written, which is made all the more impressive given his age. In order to keep the scope of this debate on target, I will once again remind the readers that we are arguing for or against the constitutionality of DOMA. All other discussion is simply evidence for or against this main goal. Thus far, my opponent cites two offended constitutional clauses: Full Faith and Credit and Equal Protection. My only goal and burden is to show that these two clauses (as well as any others presented by my opponent) are not violated. 1. DOMA does not violate Full Faith and Credit While my opponent acknowledges Congress' constitutional power to prescribe how Full Faith and Credit is to be administered between states, he adds the caveat that Congress' power is not unlimited. Indeed, this is absolutely true. Congress' power is limited by the U.S. Constitution. Since the Full Faith and Credit clauses grants Congress power to determine how Full Faith and Credit is administered, it stands to reason Congress' use of this power is constitutional if and only if it does not violate other clauses such as Equal Protection. Therefore, DOMA does not violate Full Faith and Credit. 2. DOMA does not violate Equal Protection With Full Faith and Credit eliminated from the issue, we can turn our attention entirely on the issue of Equal Protection. My opponent touches on several points which I will rebut. a) First, my opponent claims that the denial of 1,138 federal provisions for married couples is a violate of equal rights. Yet, DOMA does not prevent any person in America from receiving these rights. Every state has the power to provide the same legal benefits to both heterosexual and homosexual unions. And though DOMA federally defines marriage to mean heterosexual marriage, the federal government is still permitted to add all the same benefits to any other marital union it wishes. b) In "Loving v. Virginia," it was determined that denying anyone wishing to enter into the marriage institution as it was then defined (i.e., heterosexual) was unconstitutional. Since then, no one is denied the protections of this institution as long as the accept the criteria that defines it, i.e., heterosexual union. c) My opponent says, "By limiting the definition of 'marriage' to 'one man and one woman', DOMA bans all homosexual marriage on the federal level." This is absolutely false. DOMA does not, in any way whatsoever, prevent homosexual marriages in states that legalize them nor does it prevent Congress from creating any number of homosexual marriage protections, even 1,138 of them. DOMA certainly is a hurdle to homosexual marriage advocates, but a "hurdle" does not equal "unconstitutional." d) I will concede to my opponent the argument that biological or learned homosexuality is irrelevant to the debate. In either case, Equal Protection is not violated. Whether one cannot help being homosexual or has chosen it willingly, they are still fully at liberty to enter into the heterosexual marriage institution. My rebuttals are certain to seem repetitive, but that's because the reasoning behind my position is very simple. Just because someone wants the same protections as someone else does not automatically mean a violation of Equal Protection has occurred. I may desperately want the same protections of certain religions, nonprofit organizations, or minorities, but it does not follow that my denial of such protections is unconstitutional. Until it is conclusively determined that one has a civil right to a particular institution can Equal Protection be invoked. Consider the hypothetical scenario in which Congress immediately adds the same 1,138 protections to a second institution called civil union. In such a case, both heterosexual and homosexual unions have equal federal protection. I submit that the scenario is constitutional, and DOMA therefore is also constitutional as it fully allows such a scenario to occur. At best, my opponent has argued that this is equivalent to "separate-but-equal." In Brown v. Board of Education, it was determined that everyone has a civil right to public education with equal protection. Separate facilities by their nature were determined to be unequal. However, marriage does not fall into this same conflict. Marriage is a construct, a definition. No one has a civil right to be labeled identically to someone else. That is to say, if the government chooses to recognize a variety of marital institutions, there is no inalienable right to insist they be lumped into a single institution. And if my opponent insists that all people have a civil right to a singular, universal marital institution called marriage, then he essentially claims that people have a civil right to define marriage. There is no precedent in which anyone is entitled to such protections. In summary, DOMA does not prevent the same rights granted to heterosexual marriage to be applied to homosexual marriage. It does not explicitly or implicitly ban or outlaw homosexual marriage. It simply defers the recognition of the institution to the states. There is no doubt as to the controversial nature of DOMA. The idea that same-sex marriage is not getting the same benefits and protections as heterosexual marriage generates a lot of heating emotion. But how we react or feel about DOMA should have no bearing on whether or not it's constitutional. No matter how non-progressive DOMA may be, it does not logically follow that it unconstitutional.