Gay marriage

1. "my opponent's argument about child rearing *fails* the rational basis test because we allow barren couples to marry. Most women older than 55 cannot have children (because of menopause), yet they are still allowed to marry. And furthermore, my opponent puts the emphasis on child *rearing*, not on having children; the reason I obviously win this point is because gay couples can and *do* raise children. Thus there is no rational basis for excluding gays from marriage rights." You know what, not only will I pass the rational basis test but strict scrutiny as well. To pass strict scrutiny and constitutional muster, the law or policy must satisfy three prongs: First,"The [s]tate must show at least that the [challenged] classification serves important governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed are substantially related to the achievement of those objectives. (United States v. Virginia)" From Loving v. Virginia: "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110 (1942)." SKINNER V. OKLAHOMA 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110 (1942), which invalidated Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act on equal protection grounds, stated in part: "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." As you can see, Marriage wouldn't be "fundamental" to the "existence" and "survival" of humanity if it was completely delinked from procreation or had nothing to do with reproductive potential. Marriage is the regulation of procreation and rearing of children. This has been deemed the most compelling of ALL compelling state interests by the U.S. supreme court several more times. Second, "the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest." The overinclusive and underinclusive arguments: Procreation: There has been state efforts in the past to prohibit relationships like infertile couples. However, a law excluding infertile heterosexual couples is constitutionally unenforceable because marriage between a man and a woman has been held to be a fundamental right making there attempts unsuccessful. In addition, the state would have to resort to intrusive fertility tests in order to establish that they are unable to have children and even then, therapy and long term fertility may reverse the prognosis. Not to mention, we would have to check almost every single couple that wants a marriage license. This clearly would take a large amount of resources to accomplish. Thus, it's costly, impractical, and unconstitutional. The law rightly assumes a presumption of reproductive potential on the part of heterosexual couples. By contrast, with same sex couples, we do not need intrusive fertility tests to establish that same sex couples are barren by biological default. Two people of the same sex can never reproduce with each other nor are there as many situations like it. Most importantly, there is no fundamental right to gay marriage (or plural marriage for that matter) so the state has a 10th amendment right, as established by the U.S. Supreme Court, to deny those relationships. Marriage: Since the name and meaning of it is the institution, a further explanation as to why the state allows the infertile to get a marriage license more directly involves the institution of marriage itself. Our marriage laws are there to shape culture and culture shapes conduct. Allowing infertile heterosexuals does not attempt to take away the law's ability to recruit and influence the culture of heterosexuals who are "fertile" to make sure they create and/or raise their offspring's in a stable environment. Moreover, the state cannot promote responsible procreation and rearing of children without referencing and acknowledging the traditional definition of marriage because it?s the only union that can procreate and fulfill this particular state?s objective; unlike same sex couples who cannot by definition procreate. Thus, infertile heterosexuals do not change the definition nor challenge the intention of the institution of marriage. This is because the definition of marriage (man and woman) and the purpose of it (responsible procreation and rearing of children) are synonymous. If the state were to call same sex unions a marriage in conjunction with opposite sex couples, the law would publicly declare that, from now on, Marriage can be understood apart from responsible procreation, natural parenthood, and connecting children to their own mothers and fathers. Since the well-being of children would no longer be a component of the concept of marriage, the social stigma within choices (like divorce, cohabitation, fatherlessness etc.), which serves as a natural deterrent for couples to disdain from, would decay and eventually be eliminated. This is because marriage ends up ONLY becoming a matter of choice between consenting adults who want to express their love a certain way. As a result, heterosexuals, from future generations, would most likely formulate those choices that have the potential to harm their own family and society in general. Thus, the state would no longer be able to encourage incoming generations of heterosexuals to create stable environments where the nuclear family could be intact during the child development process. ] Finally, " the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. More accurately, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest." Since same sex couples are not similarly situated, an important governmental distinction between the two relationships would be warranted in order to continue the promoting natural marriage to each generation of heterosexuals while the state can encourage homosexuals to adopt and stay together with civil unions. The state only uses the term to achieve this purpose. 2."my opponent demands something that doesn't yet exist – a Supreme Court ruling on the issue of gay marriage. Yet just because the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the issue does not mean that equal protection violations are legitimate. In addition, the Supreme Court reverses itself all the time." On the contrary, if you Google Baker v. Nelson, The case will show you that the same court in Loving not only distinguished same sex marriage from interracial marriage, but established it as a right that does not exist under the constitution and never did. They also rejected and refuted many of the other﻿ same arguments gay activists make today. In fact, the U.S. supreme court has been consistent throughout the history of marriage ranging from plural marriage (Reynolds v. U.S.), from interracial marriage (Loving v Virginia), to even same sex marriage (Baker v. Nelson) that marriage is between one man and one woman for responsible procreation and rearing of children. so the 14th amendment does not confer a RIGHT to gay marriage anymore than it does for polygamy 3."The study actually concluded that straight marriage rates in countries that legalized gay marriage EITHER a) increased, b) stayed the same, or c) declined *consistent with other countries in the region where gay marriage was still illegal.* My opponent merely cherry picks the Netherlands out of the many countries in the study, but marriage rates in the Netherlands had been on the decline before gay marriage was legalized." If this was any other country or the increase was minimal or happened before its inception, then maybe it would not be as significant. However, Netherlands was not only the first country that legalized gay marriage and had a good head start, but it was legalized in 2001. Moreover, the number of couples choosing cohabitation (or register partnerships) increased almost five times more after the legalization of gay marriage. This is clear indication that gay marriage had something to do with it