Prop 8. is constitutional

Ninth Amendment: I'd like to point out again that my opponent hasn't responded to the defense of the existence of a right to gay marriage in the sub-point, so it's extended across the flow. I have proven that in some way through human and natural rights (in contrast to my opponent's argument through the definition of marriage we're evaluating), the right to gay marriage exists because as the human right dictates, the only criteria that needs to be met in order for a marriage to be valid is for two adults to conscent. Proposition 8 provides an unneccessary restriction and burden to that, as I've explained. The reason why my opponent shouldn't be so nonchalant about the unreasonable decision argument is because the non-domination principle is the arbiter of what constitutes that people are being treated fairly in their options. Even if gay marriage isn't a right as my opponent explains, the fact that the elimination of gay marriage takes away the reasonable alternative leaves gay couples to choose between two bad options. What I am explaining here is that fairness is a right and fair decisions are a right, and when gay marriage is taken out, gays are violated in their right not of gay marriage, but of a reasonable option. Whether or not gay marriage is a right is irrelevant in this scope. None of these arguments are attested by my opponent, so they are extended. Fourteenth Amendment: My opponent's strawman lies not in what I've said I was defending, but in what are the ramifications I claim at which what I said I'm defending has been violated. In the evaluation of a violation of this amendment, I was looking not to gay marriage itself, but how Proposition 8 was decided upon. I could explain the holes in my opponent's arguments, but nevertheless, my opponent makes a rational argument as to why gay marriage should not be legalized. The real question remaining, however, is if the people who voted in Proposition 8 for "yes" voted with this same reasoning. I explained earlier in my case the Supreme Court cases that determined what were the criteria for a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. My opponent states such a violation comes in whenever a right is violated. That is for Due Process Clause. The Equal Protection Clause protects against unfair, irrational, or invidious discrimination. My evidence explained that in Baker v. Nelson (1971). What I proved through my evidence is that Proposition 8's decision was based not on rational arguments like what my opponent posts, but on personal disliking of homosexuals, personal religious beliefs discriminating against homosexuals, arguments that gay marriage will lead to polygamy, bestiality, destruction of society, etc. Even if there was one case of that, Prop 8 had some basis in discrimination. This is why Prop 8 violated the Equal Protection Clause: its passage was based on discrimination and not rationality. BOP: I concede that BOP is shared. However, the specific BOP that I explained I needed to uphold has not been argued against. I explained my position of the CON only to prove a single violation of the Constitution and how I didn't need to argue that the state has an interest to uphold gay marriage because that was my opponent's thesis and BOP, not mine. Henceforth, those arguments are extended across the flow. What Marriage Is: I never said that Prop 8 infringes on what marriage is. I said that Prop 8 changes what marriage is. Before Prop 8 was instituted, a California Supreme Court case overturned the illegality of gay marriage. Proposition 22 had been struck down by this court ruling [1].This signifies that there was a change in the definition to something expansive to include gay marriage before Prop 8 was passed, and Prop 8's action was to change the definition of marriage back to only include heterosexual couples. It sounds like I'm only reiterating everything I said, but that's because my opponent never argued against what I iterated before. My opponent explains that certain people can be excluded from marriage as long as it's properly defined, but as I explained with my O1 and just simple understanding of legislation of legalizing gay marriage, this debate is about changing a proper definition to something more restrictive. My opponent never defined marriage but what Prop 8 did. This is where my argument comes in that my opponent's entire case is nothing but circular reasoning. He's arguing for Prop 8, a legislation that changed the definition of marriage, with the definition of marriage that Prop 8 is changing marriage to. He's using a premise in on itself. I don't need to find a definition for marriage, as I explained earlier, because the debate is about changing a definition. Everything in my case needs to be refuted so that it won't go extended across the flow. For arguing against an observation that I've already extended, you can definately take off the conduct vote from my opponent.States Interest: My opponent went through numbering, so I'll follow the same procedure for the sake of comprehensibility in my arguments. (1) My opponent goes through his arguments again more clearly about why anything he said earlier warrants the need to stop gay marriage, but with newer arguments. He makes a brand-new economics argument stating that the government benefits and subsidization of marriage is costly, so the government should pick marriage that are worth subsidizing. He's switching his reasons for protection of procreation and child rearing; earlier he said that procreation and child rearing are good for maintaining society and stable families. Now, he's arguing that it's costly. There's no solidarity in my opponent's argument. The part that you will pay attention to most is the fact that my opponent contradicts himself when he states that gay marriages rarely procreate. He wants to subsidize marriages only of a procreative type, and the fact that he himself states that gay marriage can procreate at all means that at some level gay marriages can achieve the purposes that my opponent is trying to argue for. He says that artificial means of procreation is bad for society, but never explains a reason why let alone provides evidence that this claim is true. Gay marriages rarely procreate, but as my opponent himself said, procreation is encouraged and not mandated, and the fact that they can procreate at all shows us that it can fit in the definition that my opponent is trying to protect and the purpose of marriage that fits with that definition. My opponent proved for me that gay marriage can go into state interest. This one statement pretty much drops his entire case. He also never argues against my arguments of his research on gay parenting nor refutes the evidence I brought up. (2) My opponent proves that responsible procreation can encourage a growing and proper society, but he never proves that California wishes to achieve a growing and proper society through procreation. My opponent is making an assumption. (3) I completely understand that procration per family would be 2 or 3 children in the world of my opponent, but the key words are that my opponent wants to create a growing society, as he said previously. My evidence points out that this doesn't make population amounts go on a decreasing path. He states that the world is not overpopulated despite the fact that we have 7 billion people (and growing) populating a finite space. Fertility rates have been dropping, but that's because of a variety of reasons including that more and more countries developing and fertility rates aren't the only factor that leads toward overpopulation. The fact that my opponent is trying to encourage procreation, however, only proves to us he's trying to make fertility rates increase. I upheld my BOP, my opponent's case is circular reasoning, and my opponent is only trying to support marriage of procreative type but concedes that at some level, gay marriage can procreate. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...(2000)