There is no rational basis for banning gay marriage.

NOTE: For the record, I agree with Con that sexual orientation should be a suspect class. But that point isn't relevant to this debate. So I'm not gonna address it further.Con and I agree on most of the specifics about rational basis review. We disagree on how rational basis applies to bans on gay marriage. Specifically, I disagree that bans on gay marriage are "rationally connected" to encouraging responsible procreation. Although rational basis is a deferential standard, it isn't toothless. Even when the group discriminated against isn't a "suspect class," the Supreme Court still examines, and sometimes rejects, the rationale offered by the government for the challenged discrimination. [1] For instance, in Heller v. Doe, Con's main source, the Supreme Court still required "some footing in the realities of the subject addressed by the legislation"; not just anything will pass rational basis review. [2]1. Con's argument addresses the wrong issue.This is Con's argument: (1) states have a legitimate interest in promoting responsible procreation, and (2) "marriage" is rationally related to that interest because it reduces unplanned pregnancies.This argument only addresses whether there is a rational reason to provide the right of marriage, not whether there is a rational basis to exclude gay couples. But this debate isn't about the right of marriage, it's about the exclusion of gay couples from marriage. So Con's argument addresses the wrong issue.2. Con's argument conflicts with extensive Supreme Court case law.Con ignores the "exclusion" side of the equation. That approach disregards extensive Supreme Court case law. In equal protection cases, the focus of rational basis review is the "exclusion" created by the challenged legislation. The inquiry is whether there is a rational connection between the "exclusion" and the govenment's purported interest. [1] [2] [3] [4]For example, in Cleburne, the Supreme Court examined a city's interest in denying housing for people with disabilities. The Court didn't consider the interest in allowing housing for others. Instead, the Court's analysis explicitly focused on the "exclusion" of those with disabilties. The issue wasn't whether allowing housing for people without disabilities was rationally connected to the city's interest; the issue was whether the "exclusion" of those with disabilities was rationally connected to the city's interest. [3]Likewise, in Moreno, the Supreme Court examined the "exclusion" of unrelated persons from food stamp benefits. Under rational basis review, the Court did not consider the government's interest in providing food stamps to related persons. Instead, like in Cleburne, the inquiry was whether the "exclusion" of unrelated persons was rationally related to a legitimate government interest. [4]Heller, the one case cited by Con, also considered "exclusion." In Heller, the mentally retarded were "excluded" from a lower standard of proof, for involuntary committment purposes. Again, the issue was whether the "exclusion" of the mentally retarded was rationally related to a legitimate governnment interest. [1]The issue in equal protection cases is always whether the exclusion is rationally related to the government's interest. Banning gay marriage is an equal protection issue. So here, the correct issue is whether "excluding gays from marriage" is rationally related to responsible procreation, not whether the "right of marriage" is rationally related to responsible procreation. Thus far, Con has ingored this "exclusion" side of the equation.3. Con's argument ignores the fact that banning gay marriage doesn't give straight couples anything. Banning gay marriage doesn't grant any marriage benefits to straight couples. The only effect that bans on gay marrriage have is excluding gay couples from accessing marriage benefits that straight married couples already enjoy. Because marriage bans don't give straight couples any benefits they didn't already have, marriage bans have no connection to the government's interest in responsible procreation.Banning gay marriage also has no connection to responsible procreation because gay couples can't procreate. Since gay couples can't procreate, they don't affect the amount of procreation, responsible or irresponsible, that occurs. Marriage bans thus cannot have any affect on procreation, responsible or otherwise.4. Excluding gay couples from marriage has no rational connection to reducing unplanned pregancies.Con says banning gay marriage is rationally connected to reducing unplanned pregnancies. The argument goes like this: Straight couples tend to produce unwanted children via unplanned pregnancies, so the state should give them marriage benefits. But gay couples can't produce children, wanted or unwanted, so the state shouldn't give them anything. In other words, straight couples get drunk and pregnant, producing unwanted children; their reward is the right to marry. Gay couples don't produce unwanted children; their reward is to be denied the right to marry.This so-called "justification" isn't rational; it's absurd. Con's argument leads to the absurd result where straight couples are rewarded for being irresponsible, while gay couples are harmed for being responsible. Given this absurd result, Con's "responsible procreation" justification cannot be a rational basis for banning gay marriage.To be sure, gay couples can't procreate. But that fact alone has no rational connection to reducing unplanned pregnancies. Straight couples don't decide whether to use birth control, whether to have children, or whether to get married based on whether gay couples can get married. The incentives for marriage -- the vast litany of legal benefits that marriage affords -- are the same whether gay couples can get married or not.How many straight couples will say to themselves, "because gay couples are allowed to get married, let's get drunk and have an unplanned pregnancy"? Ignoring the absurdity of the question for a second, the answer is zero. Excluding gay couples from marriage doesn't change how or when straight couples procreate, nor does it change how or when straight couples get married.ConclusionCon cannot win this debate for three key reasons: (1) banning gay marriage won't affect whether straight couples get married because the incentives to get married are the same whether gays are excluded from marriage or not; (2) banning gay marriage doesn't provide any benefits to straight couples that they didn't already have; and (3) banning gay marriage doesn't reduce unplanned pregnancies because excluding gay couples from marriage doesn't affect whether a straight couple will use birth control or have an unplanned pregnancy. I have shown throughout this debate that there is no rational connection between excluding gays from marriage and the state's interest in encouraging responsible procreation. I have also shown how Con's "responsible procreation" argument leads to the absurd result where straight couples are rewarded for being irresponsible, while gay couples are harmed for being responsible.For all the above reasons, there is no rational basis for banning gay marriage. I urge a vote for Pro. References[1] Romer v. Evans, available at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...; Lawrence v. Texas, available at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...; Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, available at http://www.law.cornell.edu...[2] Heller v. Doe, available at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...[3] Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, available at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...[4] U.S. Dept. of Agriculture v. Moreno, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...