Gay Marriage Should Be Legal in the United States

In order to make his argument salient, Yraelz must show that marriage is unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the only grounds he posits - that it imposes a legal structure on a religious institution. There are several problems with this position. 1) He never states what the imposition actually is. 2) Legal marriage is based on procreation, paternity, child/spousal support, familial stability, & survivor's rights (http://www.usconstitution.net...) 3) None of these issues actually fringe upon religious practices. 4) Religious marriage is certainly possible sans marriage licenses. 5) It is religion that has co-opted civil marriage by requiring marriage licenses to obtain religious marriage - not the other way around. My opponent has argued that civil marriage is unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates one's first amendment right to religious exercise. The First Amendment reads, in relevant part: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (http://www.usconstitution.net...). In order to make his position salient, my opponent must show how civil marriage impedes one's religious exercise. In order to do so, he must satisfy the prongs of the Sherbet Test from Sherbert v. Verner (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...). The test prongs are: 1) The religious belief must be sincere. 2) Government action must place a substantial burden upon that belief. If these are met, then the government must show: 1) Compelling state interest. 2) That it has pursued the interest in the least restrictive means possible. Unfortunately, due to my opponent's forfeit, I cannot respond if he makes a case for a sincere and substantially burdened religious belief. However, it is difficult to imagine how the existence of civil marriage burdens anyone's religious beliefs. Furthermore, in the case of gay marriage, it is completely impossible that two gay persons getting married burdens anyone else's right to religious exercise. Nothing about Joe and Bob tying the knot makes it harder for Bill and Susie to pray, does it? Oh... and by my opponent's argument, if thee is a sincere religious belief that gay marriage is an acceptable religious institution, prohibition on gay marriage would infringe upon the free exercise clause, which would satisfy the resolution. I have shown above that there are several compelling state interests (procreation, paternity, child/spousal support, familial stability, & survivor's rights) that civil marriage addresses. An additional one to consider is the public's desire for the institution - so the government has specific duties and protections it confers upon people. In fact, these are helpfully enumerated in the supreme court case Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...). It states... "The benefits accessible only by way of a marriage license are enormous, touching nearly every aspect of life and death..." It goes on to list two pages of non-religious civil benefits and duties of marriage. Thus, with the constitutionality of marriage itself clear, we can actually turn to the topic at hand. My opponent makes several contentions about the legality of gay marriage. Unfortunately, most of them have now been exposed as erroneous. However, they are: 1) However what my opponent failed to do was apply the strict scrutiny standard to the world in which gay marriage is allowed. The strict scrutiny standard does not apply to civil marriage's constitutionality. Marriageable people do not constitute a suspect class, and as I have shown above, civil marriage does not infringe a constitutional right. 2) My opponent assumes that there are only two alternatives, either have gay marriage or not. If this was the case then the strict scrutiny standard would apply. However there are quite a number of alternatives thus it fails. My opponent has identified only one alternative - abolish marriage. I have undermined his grounds for doing so, and this his position remains unsalient. I should add that things like civil unions for gays present a textbook separate-but-equal challenge. 3) Neither gay nor straight marriage concerns a compelling government interest. Equality does concern a compelling government interest. This statement is self-refuting. The crux of the issue surrounding gay marriage IS EQUALITY. And as I have shown above, and as the court has stated in Goodridge, there are a plethora of compelling government interests. 4) Gay marriage hurts religion and marriage in general hurts society. These are compelling government interests against allowing marriage in the United States. Actually, only the second one would be compelling if it was true. The contention that gay marriage hurts religion is immaterial - lots of laws hurt religion. Take Yoder, Sherbert, Roe, Gobitis... all these supreme court cases deal with the supremacy of law over religious concerns - cases where something "hurts" religion. Too bad - equality is more important than the free exercise of religion. Ask yourself if religion should be exercised in a discriminatory way? Should laws protect slavery if it's a religious practice? The statement that marriage hurts society is an interesting contention - one that does not seem to be backed by the legal benefits, privileges, and duties espoused in Goodridge, or by society's desire for the institution itself. In short - this is an unsubstantiated claim. 4) Neither gay nor straight marriage laws are narrowly tailored or are the least restrictive means to a goal. When the goal IS civil marriage, it's hard to see how you can have a less restrictive means to the goal than codifying... civil marriage. My opponent's aside concerning transgendered and non-gendered persons is kind of moot, because the rectification of prohibitions on gay marriage would either remove the same prohibitions for these individuals, or provide the legal basis for doing the same. And in order to hold that marriage is not the least restrictive means to a goal, my opponent must provide an example of a less restrictive system that secures all of the benefits mentioned in Goodridge. All two pages of them. ************************************************************************ Readers, I have shown that civil marriage itself is constitutional, and I have contended that prohibitions on gay marriage can be considered under the strict scrutiny standard on three different fronts. My opponent has simply contended that we should abolish all marriage, even though I have shown this position to be highly unlikely, and also that the grounds for his dismissal is unwarranted. My opponent has not offered a legal argument against my actual contentions. Unfortunately, due to his forfeit, we can't really debate the issue at length, which raises a sticky situation for what points Yraelz can address in the final round - i.e. no brand new contentions. He must either show the unconstitutionality of civil marriage or rebut the notions that homosexuals are a suspect class, moral reprobation of homosexuality can be a violation of equal protection, and that marriage is a fundamental right. AFFIRMED.