The Federal Defense of Marriage Act is Unconstitutional

It was wise of him to remind the reader of this. My opponent was also wise to bring up the second half of the full faith and credit clause, which allows congress to "prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings, shall be proved, and the effect which judgments, obtained in one state, shall have in another. " However, the power of congress is not unlimited. In supreme court case "Fauntleroy v. Lum", the Supreme Court has explicitly held that judicial proceedings "shall have such faith and credit given to them in every court within the United States as they have by law or usage in the courts of the state from whence the said records are or shall be taken. " (1). This opinion was confirmed by case Yarborough v. Yarborough (2). Section 1 of DOMA states that "'No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any . .. judicial proceeding of any other State. .. " (3). This violates the precedents upheld in these cases. However, even if my opponent wishes to deny the value of the Supreme Court's input, it must be noted that Congress is not justified in restricting "full faith and credit" if this restriction can lead to a violation of rights. Since Congress's decision to restrict fall faith and credit deals with the rights and equal protections of certain classes, the restriction must stand up to a certain degree of reasonable scrutiny. If it can be proved that any part or ramifications of DOMA result in the restriction of an individuals due process or equal protection, congress's ability to restrict 'full faith and credit' is, in this instance, unconstitutional. My opponent claims that DOMA is not a violation of equal protection. Much of this claim is staked on the idea that DOMA defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the sake of clarification and practicality, rather than for the sake of discrimination. He says that since all other marriage institutions are left to the states, there is not necessarily blatant discrimination, as homosexual marriages can still be legal is a state chooses to legalize it. Even so, because of DOMA, the federal government cannot possibly recognize any marriage that is not between a man and a woman. Even if a state chooses to recognize such a marriage, people in a gay marriage are not elegible for any benefits that come from having the federal government recognize your marriage. A study by the General Accounting Office (GAO) found that there are at least "1,138 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges. " (4). Because of DOMA, members of a gay marriage are not eligible for any of these, and they are being denied equal rights and protections under the law. Homosexuals are also being denied the right to marriage, a right that has existed since Supreme Court case "Loving v. Virginia" (5). This is a violation of the substantive Due Process and is also unconstitutional. My opponent also claims that "This does not violate Equal Protection because DOMA does not deny any person the right to enter into heterosexual marriage. " Prior to "Loving v. Virginia", it was possible for the state of Virginia not to recognize any marriage between people of mixed races. According to my opponents logic in the quoted statement, this would not violate equal protection either, as it did not deny anybody the right to enter into a marriage with their own race. The right to marriage found in "Loving v. Virginia" changed that. The same logic applies here. My opponent goes on to say that all laws discriminate to some degree. This is true. I didn't say that it was not. However, the important question regarding this discrimination is whether is stands up to at least a reasonable level of scrutiny. It is clear that it is not reasonable to deny homosexuals their 'right to marriage' and over 1000+ benefits that comes with that right (5,4). My opponent says that DOMA does not "expressly outlaw same-sex marriage". The key word is "expressly". By limiting the definition of 'marriage' to 'one man and one woman', DOMA bans all homosexual marriage on the federal level. My opponent also says "nor is there any clear design to discourage homosexual relationships. " Here, the key word is "clear". Considering that the law denies hundreds of benefits to homosexual couples, it is logical that it will discourage the formation of homosexual couples. DOMA may defer marriage matters to the state, but that it not sufficient to guarantee substantive due process or equal protection. My opponent asserts that Equal Protection cannot come into play for homosexuals because homosexuality is not biological. Firstly, it must be said that there are numerous studies that have proven biological and anatomical differences between hetero and homosexuals. Most notable are differences in Brain structure and size, as well as differences in the hypothalmus gland, which is rather responsible for sexuality. I've listed various sources to confirm this (6). This is also evidence that homosexuality exists in nature. Scientists have discovered that rams tend to be gay. The proportion of gay rams is close to the proportion of gay humans. Gay rams have brain differences similar to the ones found in humans (7). Given the nature of animals, they do not make "lifestyle choices". Even if homosexuality is not caused by biological factors, the other reputable theory as to the cause of homosexuality are various pyschological stimuli and trauma at a young age (this theory has less evidence than the biology theory). If this is indeed the cause, then homosexuality is still not a "lifestyle" choice (8). The point is, homosexuality is not a voluntary "lifestyle" choice. Regardless, equal protection of the law does not end at "life style choices". Protected and suspect classes are not required to be biological either. Religion is a protected class. Religion is also a lifestyle choice. Exclusion of homosexuals from equal protection is not justified by "it's a life style choice". My opponent's scrutiny rationale is not sufficient. Public opinion or even state opinion is not sufficient case for discrimination under a scrutiny standard. If it was, the Supreme Court would not make any particularly controversial decisions. However, it does so all the time. The aforementioned "Lawrence v. Texas" was unpopular, and many states reacted negatively towards it. Another famously unpopular case is "Texas v. Johnson", which allows flag-burning although 90% of the populace and nearly every state would like to ban it (9). I would like to take this time to thank my opponent again for agreeing to debate this very interesting topic. I have been enjoying this debate immensly. I would like to apologize for my rushed and chaotic organization towards the end of this rebuttal, but I am running out of space, energy, and daytime. Thank you. Sources (1). http://supreme.justia.com... (2). http://supreme.justia.com... (3). http://en.wikisource.org... (4). http://www.nclrights.org... (5). http://en.wikipedia.org... (6). http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... . http://www.time.com... . http://www.webmd.com... . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... (7). http://www.time.com... (8). http://www.healthyminds.org... (9). http://en.wikipedia.org...