Prop 8. is constitutional

C1) States interests It is common for Justices and other legal associates to use states interest to prove a point. And much of the time they argue it can trump the constitution. For example, in Heller v. Washington DC a handgun ban was deemed unconstitutional. Though Justice Breyer argued a states interest in securing public safety trumped any right to bear arms [1]. Now most people if you look through my debates would see I disagree, but thats not the point. I do agree, however, if there is a compelling states interest it can trump any constitutional right. So is there a states interest in marriage?A. Procreation Procreation is likely the most common argument we hear when debating SSM, other then religion. The government uses this as a means to get people to do X. In this case procreate. This theory states that marriage, in a state setting, is to create a stable family unit which is created through procreation and marriage. Now the state is not trying to force procreation, rather encourage it. And they dont want reckless procreation either, but rather responsible procreation because a responsible procreative marriage has been linked to benefit a child's health [2]. In most court cases the state argues in favor of some procreative type goal. For example, in Vermont Same Sex marriage case the state argued the current traditional marriage law fulfilled states interest by “furthering the link between procreation and child rearing.”[3]The US supreme court in Baker argued: “The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.”And in a 2003 Arizona decision: “[The state] has a legitimate interest in encouraging procreation andchild-rearing within the stable environment traditionally associatedwith marriage, and that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples isrationally related to that interest. Essentially, the State asserts thatby legally sanctioning a heterosexual relationship through marriage,thereby imposing both obligations and benefits on the couple andinserting the State in the relationship, the State communicates toparents and prospective parents that their long-term, committedrelationships are uniquely important as a public concern.” [3]B. Child Rearing Now the courts still rule against SSM due to the fact they are not the optimal couples to be raising children. The state here argues “Although, as appellants hasten to point out, married persons are not required to have children or even to engage in sexual relations, marriage is so clearly related to the public interest in affording a favorable environment for the growth of children that we are unable to say that there is not a rational basis upon which the state may limit the protection of its marriage laws to the legal union of one man and one woman.”[3] In other words, a man and a woman create better environments to children and therefore the states interest in promoting proper family structure is a compelling states interest and trumps any right to SSM if it even exists. C2) No right to SSMIs there a right to marriage? Yes. Is there a right to Same Sex Marriage? No. Here's why:The debate over SSM is what marriage is, nothing else. As the famous Girgis paper points out, "Any legal system that distinguishes marriage from other, non-marital forms of association, romantic or not, will justly exclude some kinds of union from recognition. So before we can conclude that some marriage policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, or any other moral or constitutional principle, we have to determine what marriage actually is and why it should be recognized legally in the first place."[4]Now my opponent will likely argue homosexual marriage is a right. But when he argues this he falsely assumes that there is such a right. Now only if this right exists can my opponent win this debate. Now all other constitutional argunments involve a basic right to marriage, though all those cases involved heteosexual relationships. So my opponent now must argue homosexuals share a right to marriage with heterosexuals, in doing this, however, he begs the question: what is marriage? For Gays to have a right to marriage, the definition must be along side with them. If not then their claims to a right are constitutionally invalid. So my question to my opponent is: what is marriage? Only when that is answered can my opponent win this debate. A. What is marriage?What marriage is was explained in C1, it is a relationship between one man and one woman who create an optimal situation for a family and respnsible procreation. My opponent now might argue there is no right to marriage at all in attempt to dodge the point and find another reason that it is unconstiutional. Though the only reason marriage is a right to heterosexuals is because of the procreative aspect of marriage. As Maggie Gallagher explaines the same thing as above. The only reason this right exists is because "only societies that reproduce survive."[5] The state, therefore, only has interests in subsidizing heterosexual marriages that are procreative in type. Homosexual unions are not procreative type unions in principle, and therefore fail to meet the bar of "fundamental right" status. Based on this valuble information they are now not being deprived any rights od due process or equal protection clauses. ###Objection! The state does not care about sex!!Why wouldn't they? Procreation is the only aspect of marriage, other then child rearing, that is worthy enough of any legal recognition. Procreation is something that is required for societies advancements, there's no two ways about that, its part of nature. The government therefore has compellng interest to attempt to promote this type of behavior. ###Objection! Gays can raise kids Yes, yes they can. And this is a states interest, you are correct. Though my argunment is showing procreation is a larger aspect in the states interest then child rearing. But much research has been done on the subject. The majority of it, surprisingly, shows homosexuals are worse parents then normal heterosexual ones [6]. Conclusion:There is little evidence showing any right is being taken away, vote PRO. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://eprints.qut.edu.au...[3] Duncan, William C., “The States Interest in Marriage” Avia Maria Law Review, (2004).[4] Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, "What is Marriage?" Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34, (Winter 2010)[5] Gallagher, Maggie "What is Marriage For? The Public Purposes of Marriage Law," Louisiana Law Review (2002)[6] There are many studies, but here is the newest one: http://www.sciencedirect.com...