Prop 8. is constitutional

There is a right to marriage?I agree with my opponent that there is a right to marriage, but I disagree on the point if there is a right to SSM. In other words we disagree on what we think marriage entails. Ninth amendment and equal protection clause are irrelevant to homosexual unionsThe debate over SSM is what marriage is, my opponent would likely agree with that statement. One cannot argue/claim a violation of equal rights or discrimination without answering this vital question. To claim a liberty is being violated, in the sense of marriage, marriage must be a clear concept and legally/socially defined. In other words legally we must go based on current definitions. I will bring forth the quote I presented last round:“Any legal system that distinguishes marriage from other, nonmarital forms of association, romantic or not, will justly exclude some kinds of union from recognition. So before we can conclude that some marriage policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, or any other moral or constitutional principle, we have to determine what marriage actually is and why it should be recognized legally in the first place. [Emphasis added] That will establish which criteria (like kinship status) are relevant, and which (like race) are irrelevant to a policy that aims to recognize real marriages. So it will establish when, if ever, it is a marriage that is being denied legal recognition, and when it is something else that is being excluded.”[1] In arguing homosexuals are being denied freedoms through constitutional purposes he assumes there is such a right, to homosexual couples, therefore based on his argumentative structure he now has the BOP to prove such a right exists. Now only if this freedom/right exists will the discrimination and constitutional argument be successful. In arguing that this right exists he begs the question by arguing the conception of marriage entails the right to homosexuals to marry. If this right does not exist the notions of the ninth amendment and equal protection do not apply and is irrelevant. The argument my opponent brings forth needs to have some certain definition to it, and therefore assumes a certain conception of marriage, which only exists in his head. He has failed to justify this conception of marriage in his opening statements. What marriage is Now why would this definition fail? Well the state currently regulates marriage; Proposition 8 is a good example of this. If this where the case why would the government regulate marriage at all? There is no interest in a purely romantic relationship. As the Girgis paper notes, “Why does the state not set terms for our ordinary friendships? Why does it not create civil causes of action for neglecting or even betraying our friends? Why are there no civil ceremonies for forming friendships or legal obstacles to ending them?”[1] This brings up a valid point, does it not? Friendships and other romantic relationships would fit into this definition of marriage; therefore it would be in the states interest to regulate it. There are no such regulations. It is now logical to assume that the government would not be in the marriage business if that were a supposed states interest. As my answer is the same as the one Girgis points out, but lets see their response/answer to the question “why not regulate friendships”, they note, “[…]because ordinary friendships do not affect the political common good in structured ways that justify or warrant legal regulation.”[1] The same would be true if that was the definition of marriage. It is an inadequate definition to a legal definition. It is true marriage is a fundamental right, but why is it regarded as that? Marriage is only a fundamental right because only societies that reproduce can survive. The procreative type act is what marriage is legally defined as. As Skinner v. Oklahoma concluded, “marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the [human] race.” This definition fits a traditionalist definition of marriage ­­– a definition of one man and one woman. The state, therefore, only has a reason to regulate heterosexual unions and not homosexual ones. Homosexual unions are not able to procreate in principle. Therefore they do not count as marriages to start off with. Therefore they are not being denied any marital rights as they don’t count as marriages to begin with. A homosexual “rights” activist cannot give any compelling reasons the state should allow this marital union between people of the same sex. A reason must be given to prove a right is being infringed. At this very point all of my opponents constitutional arguments fail, as homosexual marriage is not really marriage, therefore the “right” does not apply. My opponent notes, “marriage cannot be limited without an exceedingly good reason.” This is correct; marriage rights cannot be limited without good reason. There is no right to marriage therefore it can be constitutionally taken away without any problem as the rights do not apply to homosexual couples. For my opponents case to be valid he must accomplish two things: 1) Justify a definition for marriage that proves marital rghts apply to homosexual couples 2) Must show how this definition makes any sense in the eyes of the state (fufills a type of states interest). My opponents concluding remarks: A. Support for the bill is irrelevant to its constitutionality B. There is no discrimination if no rights are being infringed Conclusion: My oppponents argunments are extremely weak. The government only issuing marriage liscense based on the actual nature of marriage does not equate discrimintion. As the Public Discource notes, “[...] state’s granting marriage licenses only to opposite-sex couples is based on the nature of marriage and does not constitute unjust discrimination. The state grants a license to do X only to someone presumptively capable of doing X.” I have established established why heterosexual marriage is beneficial to society and showed a states interest where the current definition of marriage was upheld. Homosexuals lack these qualities of marital rights or fufilling the states interest. This shows that SSM is not a right. Based on the evidence I have shown the decision should be a clear reason to vote PRO. Sources: [1] Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, “What is Marriage?” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34, (Winter 2010)