The Federal Defense of Marriage Act is Unconstitutional

I appreciate my opponent's concern that he may have annoyed me with his anticipatory rebuttals, and he need not worry. As a matter of fact, it is sort of an unspoken rule that the final debater never bring up new arguments. The final debater may summarize his/her position and offer final rebuttals, but adding new arguments that cannot be addressed generally loses one the conduct vote. That being said, I will indicate below where I stand with regards to all his preemptive rebuttals. My opponent criticizes my position as not being practical, saying that "it is safe to assume that congress has no intention of creating civil unions in the near or long term future." First of all, predicting the future does not prove his case one way or the other. However, even if this were likely to be the case, as he suggests, it does not make DOMA unconstitutional. The conjecture on Congress' future actions has no bearing on the constitutionality of anything. To strengthen this argument, he appeals to "Breedlove v. Suttles." This is not a direct analogy. My opponent equates the attempt to suppress one's right to vote with the attempt to suppress one's right to marry someone of the same sex. This begs the question since he presupposes homosexual union to be an inalienable right. Discrimination itself is not unconstitutional, as we discussed earlier. In the case of "Breedlove v. Suttles," however, discrimination was causing a constitutional violation of voting rights. DOMA does not fall into this category. DOMA clarifies the current marriage laws to refer to the heterosexual marriage institution, as it had been implicitly understood for generations. This does not permanently prevent homosexual marriage, regardless if homosexual marriage were considered a right. My opponent goes on to assert that without compelling state interest, separate but equal institutions violate equal protection since they are separate for the sole purpose of discrimination. I've already argued this point. More than half the states are opposed to homosexual marriage, so Congress' actions were not done for the "sole purpose to discriminate." Congress chose to discriminate in response to state pressure. Congress' interest, in this matter, was sufficiently compelling. My opponent's response to this reason is that state opinion, if allowed to be so influential, would prevent the Supreme Court from making any controversial decisions. This is a straw man defense. First of all, I logically linked state opinion with Congress' actions, and he rebuts by hypothetically linking state opinion to Supreme Court ineffectiveness. He never really rebutted my position here. His citing of controversial Supreme Court decisions has nothing to do with the legitimate motives of Congress regarding DOMA. There is little else more compelling to Congress than more than 50% of the states demanding the power to self-govern the marriage institution. This is further supported by the fact that a Democratic President willing to stand up for homosexual rights in the armed forces quickly signed off on the act. In an attempt to anticipate possible new arguments I would bring up, my opponent refutes the argument that marriage is defined by the act of procreation. This is not an argument I intended to offer. I agree with my opponent that it is a weak argument, but would further add that it has nothing to do at all with the constitutionality of DOMA. My opponent's second anticipatory rebuttal was against an argument that marriage, being defined as a constructed institution between a man and a woman, cannot by definition be discriminatory. I would not have made this argument primarily because it would contradict my earlier arguments. I argue that marriage is a construct, and as such, is very much discriminatory. That's the whole point. The Girl Scouts discriminate against boys because the organization defined itself as such. Marriage, as I mentioned before, has been discriminating against homosexuality for eons because of its very definition--until recently--has always assumed heterosexual union. My opponent says, "Considering homosexual marriage by how it has always been defined is circular and redundant." This is but a truism, not really adding or detracting from the resolution. Congress being "redundant" or "circular" is neither here nor there when determining whether or not DOMA is constitutional. The only criterion is whether or not DOMA violates the U.S. Constitution itself. To close, I will summarize my position succinctly. DOMA is constitutional. It does not violate Full Faith and Credit, as my opponent agrees, because it is sanctioned by Full Faith and Credit. It does not violate Equal Protection for several reasons: Congress had compelling state interest to make the marriage distinction, it does not prevent the same rights granted to homosexual marriage at either the federal or state levels, and it does not deny heterosexual marriage to anyone. This is all that is necessary to negate the resolution. DOMA might be old fashioned, non-progressive, or downright mean, but it does not violate the U.S. Constitution. I would like to thank my opponent for this challenging debate topic. Four out of the five last debates I participated involved forfeited rounds. It is a pleasure to debate with someone that shows up and brings his "A" game. Thank you.