Legalizing Gay Marriage is Overall Bad Public Policy

In this round, I will refute my opponent’s case in Rd. 2 by (1) exploring the curious divergence between Kenballer’s sources and his arguments and (2) reestablishing the reasons why legalizing gay marriage is overall NOT a bad public policy.Some Issues That Must be Addressed: Kenballer begins by defining the purpose of marriage as to “regulate the biological driven phenomena known as procreation that happens either by choice or by accident.” This confused me, because I doubted that the CDC would be so bold. Consequently, I was right. The article he cited, is about “Unintended Pregnancy Prevention.” Marriage (civil or otherwise) is not mentioned even once on the page he cited.His first Source: http://www.cdc.gov...Coincidentally enough, his misuse of sources continued. Kenballer argues that this concept of “civil marriage” exists to “encourage heterosexual couples to create the next generation” and similarly disincentivize pregnancy out of wedlock. But, the source he cited only argued that homosexual couples are not disadvantaged by the fact that heterosexual couples are afforded more protections under the law, because the effect of legislation to that end does not “fall within the traditional meaning of legislative punishment, fail to further a non-punitive purpose, or be based on a [legislative] intent to punish.” (Argument cited within case originally from Planned Parenthood of Mid- Mo. v. Dempsey, 167 F.3d 458, 465 (8th Cir. 1999), citing Nixon, 433 U.S. at 473, and Selective Serv. Sys. v. Minn. Pub. Interest Research Group, 468 U.S. 841, 852 (1984).) Read on Kenballer’s second source: http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov...Kenballer attempts to preempt a response to what he conceives as “con’s view of marriage” by arguing that cohabitation leads to increase divorce rates, because those “who cohabit, compared to those who don't, have less traditional ideals or views of marriage.” While the source he cited does conclude that cohabitation does tend to correlate with higher divorce rates, neither his argument or the source it is based upon speaks to wether or not legalizing gay marriage is bad public policy. As such, this is wholly tangential to the topic at hand.Kenballer continues to explore the effects of abandoning what he considers to be “traditional ideals or views of marriage.” Among the immediate effects, he contends that “people's freedoms and their capacity to live their life with freedom of conscience and to transmit their values to their own children” would be “impugned” because gay marriage would be legalized. And yet, he fails to demonstrate how in any way heterosexual couples would in any way be precluded from passing their values from generation to generation. Instead of demonstrating an actual harm to either his existential concept of “traditional ideals or views of marriage” he merely speculates that a “secular government” will corrupt the minds of conservatives and their posterity. Would kenbaler prefer that we live under a non-secular (i.e. theocratic) regime? Even if he did actually establish how in some way “traditional ideals or views of marriage” would be harmed by expanding the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples, he comprehensively fails to demonstrate how such an imaginary threat would in any way make legalized same sex marriage an “overall bad public policy.” Interestingly enough, even Kenballer’s fourth source concedes that “Further changes to entry or exit conditions would have no binding impact on traditional marriage” (at p. 980). http://www.law.harvard.edu...And now:Remember that to win this debate, I must only demonstrate that legalizing gay marriage is not overall bad public policy. This means that my arguments must show how legalized gay marriage is either in the public interest or not in conflict with the public interest, in order for it NOT to be a bad public policy. Thusly, I stipulate that public policy which (1) upholds the principle of equal treatment under the law and (2) equalizes individual freedom are in the public interest. 1) Public policy which upholds the principle of equal treatment under the law is in the public interest.The principle of equality under the law is a universally accepted tenant of civilized and democratic society, as reflected in both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (cited above) and the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments. It is therefore appropriate that in questions of public policy, that public policy which advances equal treatment under the law be regarded as good.1a) Legalizing gay marriage upholds the principle of equal treatment under the law.As Courtney Joslin, of UC Davis wrote, “other than the gender requirements for entrance [into marriage]... most (but not all) states, states have repealed or struck down all or almost all other laws that distinguish between men’s and women’s roles and legal rights and responsibilities in marriage.” [3] Given that gender requirements still regulate whom may enter into marriage in many states, same sex couples are not afforded equal treatment under the law because they do not enjoy the legal right to marry in many states. Because of that difference which exists because of laws which define marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman, same sex couples are not afforded equal protection under the law. By legalizing gay marriage, the gender requirement for whom may enter into a marriage will be legally abrogated. 1b) Legalizing gay marriage is in the public interest.Because public policy which upholds the principle of equal treatment under the law is in the public interest, and legalizing gay marriage advances the principle of equality under the law by abrogating the gender requirements which in many areas presently govern on the basis of sex, legalizing gay marriage is in the public interest. 2) Public policy which equalizes individual freedom of choice is in the public interest.Also reflected in the due process clauses of both the 5th and the 14th Amendments is the principle that ““person . . . [shall] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. To deprive someone of liberty, in the context of entering into a marriage, is to limit the prospective choices of whom a person may marry, on any basis.2a) Legalizing gay marriage equalizes individual freedom of choice. Laws which regulate marriage on the basis of gender by defining marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman effectively deny men who wish to marry men and women who wish to marry women the freedom to marry whom they please. In effect, this denial constitutes a restriction of individual freedom. 2b) Legalizing gay marriage is in the public interest.By abrogating the restriction on individual freedom imposed by laws which define marriage as between a man and a woman, individuals who wish to enter into marriage with other individuals of their same gender will enjoy freedom commensurate with those individuals who wish to marry individuals of their opposite gender. In equalizing the freedom of choice to all persons in this way, legalizing gay marriage is in the public interest. To Summarize:Public policy that is in the public interest is NOT bad public policy. Because gay marriage is in the public interest, rather than at odds with it, I argue that it is not bad public policy. In order for public policy to be bad, it must be in conflict with or harm the public interest. Kenballer has in no way demonstrated how the public interest is harmed by legalized gay marriage, and therefore has thus far failed to demonstrate how legalizing gay marriage is overall bad public policy.