Marriage should be privatized

1) My opponent claims that the separation of church and state is a "premise" and is therefore not debatable. Why not? Many arguments are wrong (and have been proven so) because of faulty premises. What's more, in the opening round of this debate, my opponent said he is not here to "win," but to discover the "truth." If my opponent is interested in the "truth" (and not winning), then my opponent should take this as an opportunity to better understand the value of accomodation as opposed to seperation.2) My opponent defines marriage as a religious institution, and then proceeds to use that definition to argue that marriage should be a religious institution. That is a circular argument. Why limit the legal role of marriage to its religious function? The point is, even if we were to accept the separation of church and state, it does not follow that marriage should be privatized because marriage can be defined as a secular and legal institution.3) As it is currently exists, marriage is a state-sanctioned contract between two people that grants a number of legal benefits. From the perspective of the state, the institution of marriage is not religious and contains no religious elements. If my opponent truly values the separation of church and state, wouldn't it make more sense to define marriage as a state-sanctioned secular institution instead attempting to contest tradition (marriage as a state institution) while simultaneously appealing to tradition (marriage as a traditionally religious institution)? My opponent's position - that marriage should be privatized - is not consistent with its premise (separation of church and state) because it implicitly depends on a public appeal to religious tradition. It is for this reason that I argued, in the previous round, that my opponent's argument was both circular and contradictory.4) The act of creating and raising a child deserves legal recognition because it is required for society to continue existing. Marriage provides the legal framework for procreation and child-rearing. As such, the government has a compelling secular reason to recognize marriage as a state-sanctioned legal status between two people.5) My opponent claims "symbolism is arbitrary" and therefore marriage could function as a symbol "devoid of government intervention." This argument fails because this debate is not about what could be, it is about what should be: the government has an interest (namely, for the sake of child-rearing and social stability) in granting its citizens a legal status allowing them to signal commitment to another person. My opponent also claims that widespread divorce proves that marriage is not a symbol of a commitment. Divorce is a sign of human error, and it is completely irrelevant to what marriage signifies. When two people are married, they signal to their community that they are committed to each other. The looming possibility of divorce does not change that fact: until they publicly announce a desire to get divorced, the community interprets marriage as a legal symbol of their commitment. 6) I did not agree (as my opponent claims I did) that the positive effects of marriage can be replicated in a private contract. The government has a public interest in social stability, and sanctioning marriage is a way that the government signals that interest to its citizens. This is an important effect that would be lost if marriage is privatized.7) My opponent claims that marriage should be privatized because the government can replicate the effects of marriage through various socialist policies. But advocating socialist policies while arguing that marriage should be privatized is inconsistent. If socialist policies are supported, so should state-sanctioned marriage.8) In private, people are allowed to legitimize and signal their commitment to others in whatever way they choose. But none of these private forms of commitment grant legal benefits. If marriage is privatized, citizens would lose out on the large number of legal benefis that are associated with marriage. This makes privatizing marriage impractical, as it takes away one form of legitimizing a relationship (though legal means), whereas allowing state-sanctioned marriage would allow private forms of commitment while also giving citizens access to the legal status. Privatizing marriage is the equivalent of imposing a legal disability on everyone, as it prevents people from accessing the legal benefits that make marriage a valuable institution in the first place.9) My opponent argues that privatizing marriage would resolve the same-sex marriage issue. Actually, it woudn't. The people against same-sex marriage would still be against same-sex marriage.10) My opponent characterizes religious conservatives as "impossible" to contend with because their "views are based on irrational emotional faith." I believe my opponent is unfairly characterizing conservatives. Their beliefs are based on a different set of assumptions, but this does not make their beliefs more "irrational" or "emotional" than other competing sets of beliefs. There is no independent or neutral mechanism for establishing one set of views as better or more correct than another set of views. My opponent's appeal to anthropology is evidence of this: according to the same anthropological studies my opponent refers to, different beliefs and views are arbitrary, socially constructed, and therefore, no better than competing sets of beliefs.11) My opponent argues marriage should be privatized because it would make marriage more "romantic." Marriage has nothing to do with "romance," it has to do with procreation, child-rearing, commitment, and social stability. Completely transforming one of the most important and rich political institutions we have because you think it makes things more "romantic" misses the point of marriage - commitment.12) My opponent clearly does not understand the separation doctrine. If there is a separation of church and state, the government's laws overrule competing religious laws. An example will help clarify: in Goldman v. Weinberger, the Supreme Court ruled that prohibiting a military pilot from wearing a yarmulke while on duty was constitutional. The question at stake is the following: do air force regulations (government law) overrule the religious dictates of judaism (wearing the yarmulke)? From an accomodationist perspective, the Supreme Court should have ruled that the religious practice should be accomodated as long as it does not interfere with the religious practices of others. There is a clear difference between the accomodation principle and separation principle.