Gay Marriage

Thanks, David.Gay marriage = marriage between a couple of the same sex, that is recognized by the government. I look forward to this discussion! Let's begin. ==Gay people often have committed, romantic relationships similar to heterosexual marriage; this has occurred throughout history. Whether or not the government recognizes same-sex marriage (SSM), these relationships will continue to exist. In this debate, I will be arguing that these relationships, the people within them, and the people their relationship affects (their families) deserve to have their spiritual marriages be recognized by the government. To deny gay marriage would be a gross injustice that is unwarranted and unfair. First, let's consider why people want to get married in the first place. Research shows that marriage benefits the individual and thus society as a whole. Married people are more financially well off, happier and healthier than their single peers [1]. Research also shows that the legitimization of marriage is the primary factor in considering the dissolution of all relationships. Social sanctioning of the relationship promotes longevity, indicating that the legalization and social acceptance of gay marriage will strengthen gay relationships and contribute to their success [2]. Con must distinguish why the legal institution of marriage is beneficial for only straight couples. Furthermore, Con must explain why similar gay relationships shouldn't be fostered with legal protection.I am arguing that gay people (and thus society) will benefit from the benefits of legal SSM. Children undoubtedly benefit from having married parents; the benefits of a married couple logically extend to their children. It makes sense that if married people are happier, healthier and more financially well off, that the children of married couples would also benefit from the relationship. In addition to the inherent benefits of the coupling, the legal rights afforded to married couples extend to safeguard the family. In many cases, kids with gay parents have been hurt by their family not being protected in instances where adoption, the death tax and other legal issues arise [3, 4]. Con is arguing in favor of children with gay parents not being protected by the law as their peers are, for reasons 1) entirely out of their control, and 2) that are irrelevant in terms of reasonable comparison. There are a lot of families headed by same-sex parents. Almost 40% of LGBT identifying individuals have had a child. Six million people in America have gay parents, and there are 125,000 gay headed households raising 220,000 kids under eighteen [5]. Keep in mind these are old statistics and are likely much higher. These families and future families (now that gay relationships are more accepted) need protection not only in the sense of human decency, but to afford these families and society additional opportunities for success. There are no reliable studies indicating that a mother-father headed household is paramount to one's happiness or success in terms of raising children; only some studies with questionable correlation. While there are innate biological ties to our immediate family fostered through evolution, the reality is that there are very specific and primary variables that far more relevant to one's development, well being and happiness. I will discuss them here. First and foremost, financial security is paramount to a child's opportunity. Married households are more financially stable and create security for children [6]. Con is suggesting that kids with gay parents not be afforded the same opportunities and economic protection as their peers in this regard. Whether or not SSM was recognized by government, families headed by gay parents would still exist, and these people/children need legal protection. Second, science suggests that raising happy kids requires relaying empathy, teaching kindness, encouraging laughter and fostering compassion [7]. In addition, securing your own mental health, mandating discipline and nurturing your marriage are key [8]. Absolutely none of these things are limited to opposite-sex relationships. Further they can be encouraged for gays through the legal institution and social recognition of marriage, and therefore should be extended to gay couples to encourage their relationship's success. The greatest threats to the family are economic instability, unemployment, lack of emotional support and residential instability [9]. Once again, none of these things are pertinent to the sexuality of one's parents. While having ties, support and relationships with BOTH genders is in fact important and essential to the development of a child, kids with gay parents can have access to these role models by developing relationships with grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins and other people to provide similar guidance, support and nurturing pertinent to gender. According to the American Psychological Association, not one but innumerable studies that have been done and peer-reviewed and deemed credible by the science community all conclude that sexuality is irrelevant in terms of parenting abilities and outcomes [10, 11]. If necessary, I will expand more on the scientific credibility of these studies, but this shouldn't be the focal point of the debate. For now, consider the fact that divorce is rampant and supporting the traditional family are not legal prerequisites for marriage. Agreeing to have children is not a prerequisite for marriage either, even though many gay couples do. Some heterosexuals are infertile. Others simply don't want to have kids. Some couples are polyamorous. Others do not plan on being married forever. The point is, having a "traditional" lifestyle is not something the government requires when extending the legal protection of marriage. In fact heterosexual couples engage in questionable marital decisions all the time. Couples who marry young are twice as likely to end in divorce than those that wait until their later 20s [12]. Still we allow young, infertile, polyamorous straight people who are disinterested in parenthood the opportunity to get married, and receive the personal (and societal) benefits and protections that are afforded to their peers. Thus it would be logical to extend these rights and privileges to gay people as well. Gay people are forced to pay taxes like everybody else, regardless of whether or not they agree with policy. It is immoral and arguably tyrannical of government to single out this demographic as undeserving of the legal benefits and protections that are given to heterosexual couples, while still requiring of them the same obligations of citizenship. If gay adults are required to participate in and help fund government, then they should by extension be afforded the same benefits and protections. Now as for the legal arguments...The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled fourteen times that marriage is a fundamental right of all (adult) individuals [13]. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868. It states:"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."The 14th Amendment marked a large constitutional shift, which inhibited the state's rights to discriminate freely.The U.S. Supreme Court first applied this standard to marriage in Loving v. Virginia in 1967, when SCOTUS struck down a Virginia law banning interracial marriage. The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment [14].The Due Process Clause says that states may not deprive persons of life, liberty, or property without due process of law [15]. This essentially means the laws on record will be scrutinized for legitimacy in order to ensure people's rights are being recognized and protected. Whereas the law used to uphold outdated and immoral policy in the past, due process considers both the law as-written as well as the spirit of the law. Indeed we have made many adjustments throughout history; recognizing black people as free citizens and giving women voting/property rights are just some examples. The Equal Protection Clause looks to guarantee that all people would have rights equal to those of other citizens [16]. Perry v. Schwarzenegger was a 2010 federal court decision in which Judge Vaughn R. Walker cited Loving v. Virginia to conclude that the Constitutional right to marry protects an individual's choice of marital partner [17]. Afterward the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this decision along with a handful of other cases. This makes sense if you extend the same logic of due process and equal protection for gay couples. SCOTUS ruled that there was no reason to exclude gay couples from the same protection as heterosexual couples in similar relationships, which SCOTUS has every legal right to do. The 14th Amendment posits that freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.Gay Marriage is now the Constitutionally valid law of the land thanks to the 14th Amendment and the Supremacy Clause. ==In conclusion, legalized SSM is both the moral and legally righteous thing to do. I look forward to my opponent's contentions. SOURCES: http://www.debate.org...