Same-sex marriage in the U.S.

PRO asserts what the definition of marriage naturally includes same sex couples but does not explain on an empirical level where that definition originated. Also, PRO never explains what the benefit would be for the state to promote a love hypothesis view of marriage nor does she explain how including same sex couples into the definition would strengthen the bond and love between heterosexuals in marriages. Not to mention, where is the body of law that mentions how this is an actual state interest. PRO's only attempt to argue for the love hypothesis view of marriage was not an attempt at all. PRO just argued that CIVIL marriage is not about the well-being of children because we allow infertile couples. Even if this were the case, it would not prove her view of marriage to be true but just negate the child-centered view of marriage. Nevertheless, its not a valid argument against the state's view of marriage for several reasons. INFERTILE COUPLES When it comes to infertile couples, the state would have to resort to intrusive fertility tests in order to establish that they are unable to have children and even then therapy and long-term fertility may reverse the prognosis (even in post menopausal women). Not to mention, we would have to check almost every single couple that wants a marriage license. This clearly would take a large amount of resources to accomplish. For the sake of argument, even if it was possible to detect infertility in couples without state intrusion, it still wouldn't matter. Marriage between a man and a woman has been held to be a fundamental right. This means a law excluding infertile heterosexual couples would be constitutionally unenforceable and would not pass strict scrutiny because it would be overinclusive. Thus, it's costly, impractical, and unconstitutional. The law rightly assumes a presumption of reproductive potential on the part of heterosexual couples. I will again entertain PRO for the sake of argument and pretend there is a fundamental right to gay marriage even though PRO did not cite a single U.S. supreme court case showing her claim is true. Unlike the infertile, the traditional marriage laws would still constitutional muster. To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three prongs: Before I start, let make something clear here to the AUDIENCE. This is not a family structure argument or about encouraging procreation and rearing of children. This is about family STABILITY. There is a difference. Family structure is about how and who the child is raised. Family stability is about how many transitions in the environment the child may experience and encouraging couples to procreate and rear children within a legally and socially recognized situation (i.e. stable environment called marriage). Now, when I say this , I am not saying family structure is not important for the child or is not part of the state interest because it is a part of it. I am just saying that its not the argument I am promoting or conveying in this debate. So make sure when you read my arguments that you program your mind to think in the context of family stability NOT family structure. 1. First,"The [s]tate must show at least that the [challenged] classification serves important governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed are substantially related to the achievement of those objectives. (United States v. Virginia)" As explained previously, Procreation and rearing of children is a biologically driven act that happens regardless of state intrusion. What happens after procreation and during the child development process is where the state steps. The state uses the institution of marriage, primarily, as an insurance policy, just in case; a couple naturally procreates either by accident or by choice without legal and social support. The name and meaning of Marriage is there to encourage couples to procreate and/or rear their children in a stable environment that is best situated to raise children simply by obtaining a marriage license. There is also empirical evidence that supports the responsible procreation theory. Studies show that people, who cohabit, compared to those who don't, have less traditional ideals or views of marriage. Then, according to other studies, they would not only be more likely to cohabit but more likely to divorce from prior cohabitation. Just go to this website http://www.smartmarriages.com.................. 2. Second, "the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest". These are the over and under inclusive arguments: Procreation: See section, "infertile couples" Marriage: Since the name/meaning of it is the institution, an explanation as to why the state allows the infertile and others to get a marriage license more directly involves the institution of marriage itself. Our marriage laws are there to shape culture and culture shapes conduct. Allowing infertile heterosexuals does not attempt to take away the law's ability to recruit and influence the culture of heterosexuals who are "fertile" to make sure they create and/or raise their offspring's in a stable environment. Moreover, the state cannot promote responsible procreation and rearing of children without referencing and acknowledging the traditional definition of marriage because it's the only union that can procreate and fulfill this particular state's objective; unlike same sex couples who cannot by definition procreate. Thus, infertile heterosexuals do not change the definition nor challenge the intention of the institution of marriage. This is because the definition of marriage (man and woman) and the purpose of it (responsible procreation and rearing of children) are synonymous. "How exactly, in more precise terms, does same sex marriage interfere with the state's purpose in marriage" If the state were to call same sex unions a marriage in conjunction with opposite sex couples, the law would publicly declare that, from now on, Marriage can be understood apart from responsible procreation, natural parenthood, and connecting children to their own mothers and fathers. Since the well-being of children would no longer be a component of the concept of marriage, the social stigma within choices (like divorce, cohabitation, fatherlessness etc.), which serves as a natural deterrent for couples to disdain from, would decay and eventually be eliminated. This is because marriage ends up ONLY becoming a matter of choice between consenting adults who want to express their love a certain way. As a result, heterosexuals, from FUTURE generations, would most likely formulate those choices that have the potential to harm their own family and society in general. Thus, the state would no longer be able to encourage incoming generations of heterosexuals to create stable environments where the nuclear family could be intact during the child development process. 3. Finally, " the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. More accurately, there cannot be a less restrictive way to to effectively achieve the compelling government interest." Furthermore, regarding same sex couples, Society need not worry about the effects of their sexual activity in the same way. Parentage is always planned and chosen and mainly at an age where they would be able to support a family on their own. Therefore, since same sex couples are not similarly situated, an important governmental distinction between the two relationships would be reasonable and warranted. The only means the state uses is the term marriage in order to continue publicly encouraging responsible procreation and rearing of children to each generation of heterosexuals while the state can encourage homosexuals to adopt and stay together with civil unions. JUSTICE is applied EQUALLY in each case. In my next response, I will give a clear cut argument against gay marriage in terms of public policy