Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Legal in the United States

Let me begin by saying that I appreciate Con's trenchant response to my arguments. In this round, I'll continue to attack Con's procreation argument, while also defending my own argument. Now, contrary to what Con has claimed, I actually have defined marriage and given reasons why it should be defined that way. Marriage is mainly based on commitment and love, and it's part of the right to liberty, privacy and association. But we shall get into that more in depth shortly. C1: The right to marriage is a fundamental right. Con seems to have raised two different themes in his last round. First, it is simply not the case that my arguments are circular. I'll put the credibility of my opponent and his sources up against the Attorney General,[1] the former Solicitor General and the federal judges dealing with same-sex marriage cases.[2-3] It's no contest. These arguments are not circular because there is no a priori presumption that marriage is between a man and a woman. And secondly, despite what Con claims, the burden rests with the state to show why same-sex marriage shouldn't be allowed. Later on, my opponent merely asserts that gay relationships are not conducive to child-rearing. First, he has not provided a shred of evidence to justify this view. Second, I have actually provided evidence to support my claim by citing the American Psychological Association. The credibility of the APA trumps my opponent's unfounded beliefs. Con then goes on to say that Deputy Director Linette Scott's criteria detailing the state's interest in marriage are vague and perhaps too broad. Indeed, he goes on to suggest that these criteria would apply to friends and relationships with pets. I think these critiques are almost unbelievably weak. Friends and pet owners don't facilitate public order by forming cohesive and economically stable family units. They also don't create a realm conducive to liberty and free decision making by spouses. Nor do they help create stable households, unless Con is equivocating on what these "friendships" are. C2: Gay people qualify as a suspect class. Once again, Con has not challenged any four of the constitutional criteria I have outlined to show that laws that classify based on sexual orientation are subject to strict scrutiny. I'll go over this more shortly, but I'm just pointing it out for now. Let's see if Con was successful in defending his position against my five arguments. 1. First, Con attacks a straw man in dealing with my opening argument. Remember, I acknowledged that Con's position allows sterile couples to marry. My actual argument, which Con has not addressed, is that the notion that marriage is based on 'procreative types' is narrow, contrived and ad hoc. Entrenching heteronormative views into society is not a state interest. Con's position could have practically been pulled out of the Summa Theologica,[4] as many Catholics like Bill Donohue continue to demonstrate.[5] As I've said, affirming such a position is a private interest. There is no rational secular purpose for defining marriage in such a manner. 2. Second, Con's rejoinder to my next argument fails for the same reason his overall argument fails: It's ad hoc and based on no evidence. In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a fundamental right to prison inmates, even though the state knows perfectly well that they will never be able to procreate, since they can't have physical contact with their spouse. See Turner v. Safley[6] Though marriage has been defined as being heterosexual in common law, this is simply irrelevant. The Supreme Court's 14 rulings on marriage cases since 1888 have all been gender neutral and have described the right to marry as being a component of the right to liberty, privacy, association and identity.[7] I submit that the Supreme Court really has gotten it right on this topic. The right to liberty, privacy and association predate the constitution and really get at the heart of what marriage is all about. Professor Nancy Cott, an expert on marriage and a distinguished historian at Harvard University, has argued that the core social meaning of marriage is not primarily based on procreation.[8] Rather, it's based on choice, mutual feelings, commitment and support in an economic partnership so that both spouses can get the material needs of life. To reduce marriage to sex and procreation is, for lack of a better term, vulgar. 3. Third, Con seems to be contradicting himself. Is the state interested in procreation or only in joining unions that are 'procreative in type,' regardless of whether or not they actually do or can procreate? Con should really make up his mind. If it's the former, then Theodore Olson's argument about overpopulation stands. If it's the latter, then, as I've said before, his argument is ad hoc. Moreover, it is not a state interest to "teach the next generation what marriage is and is not." The same first amendment that allows Catholics like Robert P. George, Brian Brown and Maggie Gallagher to express their views on marriage also prevents them from enshrining their beliefs into the law.[9-10] 4. Fourth, despite what Con has claimed, procreation is not the central or only reason the state has an interest in marriage. And as I've said before, allowing gays and lesbians to marry would in no way harm the procreative function of heterosexual marriages or discourage heterosexuals from marrying, even if it is an important component. My opponent has not addressed this because the fact of the matter is that allowing gays and lesbians to marry does not harm heterosexual marriage. If anything, evidence and expert testimony from scientists and sociologists who study marriage has shown that allowing gays and lesbians to marry strengthens the institution of marriage for both gay and straight individuals.[11] Dr. Ilan Meyer, a professor of sociology at Columbia University, has also pointed out that bans on same-sex marriage harm gay individuals by imposing a government-sanctioned stigma on their relationships.[12] All of this further cuts at the notion that bans on same-sex marriage are rational. 5. Fifth, Con reiterates the claim that my argument begs the question. I've already dealt with this claim and refuted it. As I've explained, his argument is irrelevant because the 'responsible procreation' argument wouldn't survive strict scrutiny. Con then goes on to claim the procreation argument could survive strict scrutiny if the judge presiding over the case accepted my opponent's description of marriage. Yes, if a judge accepted the tautological notion that marriage is between a man and a woman along with the ad hoc procreation argument, then he or she might make that decision. C3: Same-sex marriage bans violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. My equal protection claims have gone unchallenged. C4: Same-sex marriage bans violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. My due process and suspect classification claims have gone unchallenged. There is no way on Earth that defining marriage as being between a man and a woman is narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest. Surely, gays and lesbians wouldn't use up all of the marriage licenses. | Conclusion | To say that marriage only involves unions that are 'procreative in type' is nothing more than an ad hoc position supported by no credible evidence. So you have that on the one hand. On the other hand, you have the combined weight of 14 Supreme Court decisions about marriage being an aspect of liberty and privacy. We've also seen expert testimony from some of the world's foremost experts in sociology, public health, science and history. This is not even close. If discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in civil marriage is justified, stronger arguments are needed to demonstrate that, since my opponent's do not. Sources: http://tinyurl.com...