There is no Legally Tenable Position for Denying Homosexuals the Right to Marry Each Other

On the Right to Marry. This right is not necessarily a basic human right. However, the implicit freedom of association with one's fellow man contained in basic human rights to self-determination yields the notion that there is a right to enter into relationships with other people independent of the state's authority. I.e. - the state cannot regulate who your friends are, the state cannot regulate who your spouse is. The right to marry whomever you choose is of course subject to restrictions based on health, etc... - this is why first cousins cannot marry unless they are incapable of producing offspring. However, the restrictions on homosexual marriage are not based on any sort of consideration. It has long been held that there is a right to privacy. This stems from the decision in Griswold v. Connecticut recognizing the right of the people to not have "government in the bedroom." In a similar fashion, sodomistic acts and lifestyle have been upheld as in this private sphere by Lawrence v. Texas. If homosexuals already have a right to privacy, a right to practice their lifestyle, and a right to marry someone of the opposite gender, it becomes clear that the restriction on their marriage is a restriction solely on their right to choose who and how they associate with other people. The right to marry is indeed a fundamental right. Consider if the US refused to grant marriage licenses to anyone. There would be a terrible uproar in the streets. If the right to equal protection under the law on basis of race or ethnicity is a fundamental right, surely the basis of sexual preference merits the same consideration. It is no different to refuse a marriage license because someone is black than because someone is gay. On Equal Protection. My opponent opens this section with a weak "separate but equal" argument. As I'm sure he is well aware, it has been held for 50 years that separate is inherently not equal. Thus, having equal "civil unions" does not satisfy the requirements of equal protection. Roy then continues to state that there are genetic differences between homo and heterosexuals that somehow circumnavigates equal protection. This is as silly a notion as denying equal protection to stupid people because they are genetically different in some arbitrary way. He states that "Demanding, based upon legalistic mumbo-jumbo, that it must be 100% does not serve either the gay community or the straight community" - this is simply a form of "true equal protection doesn't do anything positive for either side," regardless of the fact that true equal protection would satisfy the desires of the gay community. >> "For example, child custody issues in divorce might develop differently for gay civil unions than for heterosexual marriages." This suggests that there is something WRONG with raising a child in the custody of homosexuals, as though homosexuality is something the child may "catch." Considering his earlier statement about genetic differences, I find it unlikely that a compelling case can be made that the kids will "catch gay." My opponent's last argument is that the courts would need to redefine marriage. This is not the case. Many current definitions of marriage have been updated to recognize the union of two persons, as well as a man and a woman. Thus, in the same way other laws regarding legal documentation and evidence have been updated for innovations like the internet, fax, and DNA analysis, the laws regarding marriage can be updated to include current definitions. Furthermore, the only impediment in many states to gay marriage is a clause in the law defining unions of two persons of the same sex as a prohibited class of marriage. Thus, removal of simply this line would confer the right to marry upon persons of the same sex. ************************************************************* >> "Equal protection under the law allows differences for genetic reasons related to sexuality, as witnessed by the difference allowed in the rights of men and women. Therefore some differences may be allowed with respect to the rights of gays and straights." The only difference in the protections afforded by the state is that heterosexuals have a right to choose who they can marry and homosexuals do not. This seems to be a silly and arbitrary distinction with no legal backing. ************************************************************* My opponent has argued that homosexuals should not be given the legal right to marry persons of the same sex simply on the grounds that they are slightly genetically different and the state has the authority to make laws that take genetic differences into consideration when legislating about sexuality. However, sexuality is not what is at stake here - the right to choose who to marry is. Denying this right to someone because they are homosexual and have a slight genetic difference is no different than denying the right to marry to someone with Down's Syndrome. I assert that my opponent has not fulfilled the obligation of excluding the right to choose who to marry as a fundamental right, and that he has also not shown any sort of compelling state interest that would grant the state the power to remove this right from homosexuals under the rational relation test. AFFIRMED.