Prop 8 is Constitutional

For this debate, I establish the following parameters: Constitutional (adj. ): loyal to or supporting an established constitution or form of government (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)Observation 1: The arbiter of constitutionality in the United States is the federal, circuit, and Supreme Court. This debate must hence analyze the constitutionality of Proposition 8 partially through the interpretation of the United States Constitution and include court ruling(s). Observation 2: The PRO possesses based on the resolution and the functioning of the Constitution 2 burdens to uphold: he must prove that Supreme Court supports or would support the Proposition by Constitutional means and must also prove that Proposition 8 does not violate a single component of the American Constitution nor the form of government it and the Founding Fathers had established for the United States. Contention 1: Referendums are characteristic of direct democracy and are contradictory to the intention of the establishment of a republic. The referendum is a known instrument of direct democracy, where the people directly have control over the government and make the decisions. However, as history and the conception of the Constitution will show, the Founding Fathers' intention was not only to establish a representative democracy (a republic, rather than a direct democracy), but their fear was the very idea of a direct democracy. This establishment is shown through the creation of the Electoral College rather than allow for popular vote to be the arbiter of elections. "James Madison (pictured), in particular, was wary of even using the word "democracy" lest Americans confuse its representative form with its direct form; he preferred "republic". So did Benjamin Franklin. Asked by a Philadelphian what form of government the constitution of 1787 had created, he replied: "A republic, if you can keep it. " A quick glance across the globus reveals that the relationship between democracy and freedom is quite complicated. There are "illiberal democracies", and free societies that lack democracy. Even within America, democracy can threaten, rather than abet, liberty, as I explain in this week's issue of The Economist. Indeed, the founding fathers would be horrified by the "direct democracy" that two dozen mostly Western states in America practice today. And so am I, who happen to live in one of them, California. Starting with California's infamous "Prop 13", which capped property taxes and also required two-thirds majorities in both houses of the state legislature to raise any future taxes, voter-initiative industries sprang up in various states that now churn out ballot measures as though by conveyor belt. Getting enough signatures to qualify an initiative for the ballot is easy for sponsors with lots of money, who can afford to pay college students a dollar or more for each signature they collect in a mall. "Contention 2: The reasoning for Proposition 8 warrants a violation of the 14th Amendment. Looking back through my opponent's own evidence [1], the explanation of the ruling for Griswold v. Connecticut explains the conditions at which a violation to the Equal Protection Clause is warranted: " The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, like the due process clause, is not offended by the state's classification of persons authorized to marry. There is no irrational or invidious discrimination. Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment. " The intentions for voting Yes on Proposition 8 are based on the people, meaning that if I prove even one person voted or would've voted on a discriminatory basis, I prove a violation. This video gives such a person: . http://www.youtube.com...Contention 3: Already considered unconstitutional. The 9th Circuit Court already ruled the measure unconstitutional, making it official. . http://www.basiclaw.net...http://www.economist.com...http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com...