Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

My position is that Proposition 8 does not breach the Constitution of the USA, as alleged by my opponent. The basis on which the US Constitution's protections have been applied to minorities can best be outlined by reference to the decision in HERNANDEZ v. TEXAS, 347 U. S. 475 (1954). I quote from that judgment: *(b) When the existence of a distinct class is demonstrated, and it is shown that the laws, as written or as applied, single out that class for different treatment not based on some reasonable classification, the guarantees of the Constitution have been violated. P. 478. * . http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com... It would seem from the above ruling that in order to be granted protection as a minority group, the group must be treated differently (and worse) than other groups. But Proposition 8 has in any way resulted in a differential treatment of homosexuals. Proposition 8 merely defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman (nb, a definition that has existed for thousands of years). The result of this is that a person cannot enter into a legal marriage in California unless that marriage is to a person of the opposite sex. This limitation applies equally to everyone, without regard to his or her sexual orientation, race, religion or gender (although admittedly marriage laws do discriminate against people on the basis of their marital status; a married person can't get married! ). Had the Proposition stipulated that homosexuals are excluded from marriage, my opponent might have a case. But that's not the stipulation. As the Proposition stands, no matter what gender you are, what nationality you are, what religion you are, what sexuality you are, you can only legally marry a person of the opposite sex. It is in fact a STERLING example of equal treatment by law. Now my opponent might argue that only a homosexual would marry a person of the same sex (as Judge Walker himself said in the case of Perry v Schwarzenegger). But is that really the case? Homosexuals are people who are sexually and/or romantically attracted to persons of the same sex. But neither element is a prerequisite for marriage. People who are sexually inactive (or indeed asexual altogether) are still able to marry (and do marry) as are people who are not in love with each other. Ironically, this very argument is often used by proponents of same-sex marriage. Being able to reproduce is not a requisite for marriage. Infertile (as well as impotent or emotionally unattached) people are able to marry. And they do, for a variety of reasons. Since marriage is not dependent on fertility, sexual attraction or romantic involvement, there is no merit in any claim that prohibiting everyone from marrying people of the same gender constitutes a differential treatment of those who are sexually or emotionally involved with persons of the same sex (ie homosexuals). And now let us have some Slippery Slope Fun. Traditionally and historically marriage has almost invariably been a union between a man and a woman. What proponents of same-sex marriage are seeking is a redefinition of marriage, based only on choice. But then, if a person's choice regarding marriage is to be so much respected that we should allow it to redefine marriage then why not allow polygamy? What about incestual marriages? What about marriages between a human and an animal? There's nothing wrong with marrying an animal, by the way. If it makes someone happy, why shouldn't they? I'm sure that there are a great many people in this world who are very distressed (and feel stigmatised) by the fact that they can't exercise their choice to tie the knot with their favourite pet. Why should Joe have to feel isolated and stigmatised because his choice to marry his cat is not given legal status? What about marrying one's mom? Every boy wants to, at some stage. Some probably would if they had not been talked out of it in the first place. After all, it's illegal. But why? If we're going to change the millenia-old meaning of marriage for the sake of same-sex marriage then why don't we be honest with ourselves and go all the way? Just allow anyone to marry whoever (or whatever) they want. Would my opponent by opposed to this course? Now, my last paragraph might sound like a joke. But is it? After all, we know the legal position. You can't discriminate against a class unless the exclusion is based on some reasonable classification. So what's the reasonable classification that would justify us in failing to legally recognise a marriage between a man and his mother or a woman and her favourite labradore? Now, if my opponent is happy to agree to the foregoing, we might reach settlement and ask the voters to vote for us equally (that would be my Proposition). However, I have a feeling that he will not be happy to agree to the foregoing. I would like to know why.