The US Supreme Court misinterpreted the equality clause when he legalized gay marriage nationwide
I Pro will argue for the topic. Con against the the topic.
gogo power rangers
Relationship between one man and one woman has been recognized by state for millennia in all societies, civilizations, and empires. But recently, in the US, the US Supreme Court has ruled that this recognition violates the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause.
The the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides: "No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." So, the equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among groups but only "equal application" of the laws, meaning that it's not a requirement that everybody be treated equally no matter what the circumstances.
Otherwise, a violation would occur because a child does not have the same right to vote as an adult or because an non-eco-friendly business does not have the same right to subsidy as eco-friendly business.
By saying that since heterosexual unions are legally recognized and benefited from taxpayer's money, if we don't recognize homosexual unions also, this violates the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, the Supreme Court implicitly negated precedent definitions, misinterpreted the Equal Protection Clause and arbitrarily, without objective justification, legalized gay marriage nationwide.
In a human society there are many various types of romantic, economical, spiritual or sibling unions in which people live together, such as: heterosexual, homosexual, polygamous, polyandrous, roommates, benedictine nuns, unmarried sisters. But they are not all recognizad by satate because it not for the state to confer a dignity to this adult unions but to recognize union that is of pubic importance.
Why is it that every society in human history, across cultures and ages, have recognized union between one man and one woman as that of pubic importance. It's because this union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value. Without it, society would cease to exist after only a single generation. Since the existence of a society is publicaly important this type of union is legally recognized and individuals that have chosen to enter into it are entitled to publicly funded benefits.
Since public recognition of this union equals - "marriage", people that decided to enter into different types of romantic, economical or spiritual unions, that are not entitled to public recognition, can't marry ipso facto and are not entitled to publicly funded benefits, as this benefits are intended for individuals that decided to enter into publicly important type of union.
So, saying that since heterosexual unions are legally recognized and benefited from taxpayer's money, if we don't recognize the homosexual unions also, this violates the equal protection clause ... is as apsurd and nonsensical as saying that since eco-friendly business is recognized and benefited from taxpayer's money in the form subsidy, if we don't recognize a non-eco-friendly business and benefit it with subsidy also, this violates the equal protection clause.
Legal recognition of eco-friendly business arises from the public importance of environmental protection. I the same way, legal recognition of heterosexual union arises from the public importance of reproduction of society and linking children to its true dual identity since every child has a built-in identity of one man and one woman.
A violation of Equal Protection Clause would occur if a state prohibited an eco-friendly business from subsidy because individual who owns a business is homosexual. Also, a violation would occur if a state prohibited an individual from entering into a marriage because he or she was a member of a particular race.
But, the law has every right to define marriage as between a man and a woman and this does not represent the violation of Equal Protection Clause.
To conclude, the US. Supreme Court denied this easy understandable principle, misinterpreted the equal protection clause and arbitrarily legalized gay marriages.
This is a fact debate. This is also a legal debate. Henceforth, in a fact debate, Pro always has the burden of proof. We are talking about whether an interpretation is true or untrue, and when one is going against what is accepted, then one must need to prove their burden. Moreover, we are not talking about a world if it were in a perfect state (should-situation), but rather, the world as it is now (is-situation). Hence, for Pro to win this debate, he must prove that, under Supreme Court regulations, that his case can be defended under close legal scrutiny. Lastly, we are talking about the Equality Clause, and not any other clauses. Although the Equality Clause is also related
Although social recognition of marriages might explain how marriages ought to be recognized, the stare decisis nature of the Supreme Court is incoherent and inconsistent with the “social productivity” test.
Pro, throughout his argument, argues that marriages are legally recognized as they “[are the] means by which humans come into existence.” Marriages are granted benefits as, “[the] existence of a society is publicly important,” but since homosexual unions are unable to reproduce, then they are not entitled to benefits.
However, this argument suffers from many flaws. The first one being is that it has no precedent in American Constitutional Law. Precedents in American Constitutional Law are important, and are the main tool the SC (Supreme Court) uses to decide on cases. Past SC cases have shown that marriage was legally recognized and protected, not because it was socially productive, but because it was essential in the pursuit of happiness of the common man. This was noted in Loving v. Virginia (where laws criminalizing mixed-race marriages were struck down), when the SC decided “freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”  This quote goes to suggest that the SC never recognized marriage on the basis of society, but more so on the individuals. To go back further, in Maynard v. Hill (decided in 1888), the SC ruled that “[marriage is] a relation…as affecting the happiness of individuals, the first step from barbarism to incipient civilization.”  As these two quotes suggest, marriage has always been recognized not because of the societal productivity that it produces, but because it is essential in the pursuit of liberty and happiness of men. Apart from this, one must note a complete lack of precedent legal cases quoted by Pro, signifying that his arguments are made a priori to any precedent SC cases.
Moreover, such judgment is also wholly inconsistent with cases involving married couples that have been voluntarily sterilized and/or are using contraception of any forms. Although Pro may attack the need of recognizing none “socially productive” marriages, the Supreme Court doesn’t. In Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court attacked and struck down Connecticut’s “Comstock Law” (which banned contraception) as it infringes with the right to privacy protected in the First Amendment.  This implies that, even if a type of union is not socially productive for society’s existence, the government and the public as “socially useful” often recognize it. Moreover, this also suggests that the social productivity test has never been very much of an issue to the SC in general.
Before I go on, I would like to comment Pro’s assertion that “the equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among groups but only "equal application" of the laws.” However, is marriage not a law? Does marriage not necessarily have a set of laws governing it? The opposition seems to think that the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges was decided on the basis de facto equality. However, SC’s decision was not only based on de facto equality case, but that of de jure equality. In the syllabus of the case, we are told, “The challenged laws…abridge central precepts of equality…Same-sex couples are denied benefits afforded opposite-sex couples and are barred from exercising a fundamental right.” 
In conclusion, as precedent cases have shown the a priori interpretation of Pro to be inconsistent and incoherent with the doctrine of stare decisis, then there can be no rational ground that we should accept this interpretation at all.
b.) Precedent Definitions
The precedent definition of marriages here make no difference to the case, as the definition of marriage has always been in flux and the concept of marriage has changed from the beginning of time.
Pro, throughout the argument, made references to precedent definitions of marriages. Pro argues, “[the] Supreme Court implicitly negated precedent definitions” in deciding in favor of gay marriages. Pro also argues, “the law has every right to define marriage as between a man and a woman,” which leads him to conclude against the justness and the correctness of the SC interpretation.
However, the definition of marriage has always been in flux throughout the years. For example, in 18th Century, marriage was held as wholly male-dominated. Blackstone noted “as [the husband] is to answer for her misbehavior, the law thought it reasonable to entrust him with this power of restraining [his wife].”  This definition gradually changes with the time and with societal changes. By the 1970s, mixed-race marriages were not seen as abnormal.  And as Justice Kennedy notes, “[when] new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.” 
Moreover, even if marriage had an essentialist definition, it would not be the “male-female” definition the opposition presents. This is most clear when, in United States v. Windsor, the SC struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, which attempted to define marriage as a “legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" on the basis that “Responsibilities…enhance the dignity and integrity of the person…DOMA contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not other couples, of both rights and responsibilities.”  Rather, the Supreme Court defines marriage as the union between two-persons which “responds to the universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to find no one there.” 
To conclude, since the definition of marriage has always been in flux, and since current definitions agreed by the Supreme Court is not the “male-female” definition, we should strike down this objection as invalid.
Since Pro’s main case suggests incorrect things about the nature of the legal recognition of marriage, and since Pro’s main case attempts to build on an unsupported and arbitrary definition not found in any SC jurisprudential documents, then Pro’s case for the reinterpretation of the equality clause fails to be upheld.
Con claims that my argument suffers from "many flaws" because:
a) Supreme Court suggested that marriage has always been recognized not because of the societal productivity that it produces, but because it is essential in the pursuit of liberty and happiness of men.
b) infertile married couples
To show why this objections are non sequitur and completely irrelevant I want to clarify my argument a little bit more, by using an analogy. This will also show why Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage is not only unfounded but also absurd and nonsensical.
We all know that the environmental pollution gives rise to various environmental problems. Due to this reason, government has interest to create laws, tax benefits and other policy mechanisms to encourage individuals and businesses to adopt environmentally friendly practices. Let us suppose that individual A decides to enter into eco-friendly production. This decision is now recognized by government and benefited with public money in the form of tax benefit.
Now, another individual(B), that did not adopted environmentally friendly practices, sees this privileged status of individual A and start to protest, demanding "equality for businesses" and "extending the privileges" already enjoyed by the individual A.
The government responds to the individual B by saying that this is absurd - you can't extend privileges intended for businesses that adopted environmentally friendly practices to the businesses that didn't adopt them, since right to this privileges exist only as the result of policy that recognizes the importance of the preservation of the environment.
Individual B is not satisfied with this answer. She has chosen the type of business that is important and precious to her, the same as Individual A has chosen the type of business which have relevance to her. Since she can't stand the fact that someone's else business have a privileged status in the eyes of public authority, she takes her case to Supreme Court. Supreme Court accepts a case and decides that a government policy is unconstitutional because businesses A and businesses B are treated differently. And now, eco-friendly benefits are extended to non-eco-friendly businesses also.
Of course that this scenario sound crazy, but this is exactly what was done on June 26, 2015, when Supreme Court made marriage for same-sex couples legal nationwide.
In order to show this, first we have to define what marriage is:
"the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law"(1)
This is the crutial part: "relationship recognized by law". In other words, marriage, from the state's perspective, represents the following:
A) public proclamation of relationship by an authority figure
B) rights and obligations between spouses established by a law
C) package of government benefits
Now we will ask a crucial question. Why this things mentioned above(A,B,C) exist in the first place? Why the state got in the marriage business?
The answer is simple. Because state knows that majority of relationships between man and woman will result in children. In order to ensure a healthy and stable environment in which future citizens are produced and in order to ensure child to have a mom and a dad, if child is adopted, state legally recognized relationship between one man and one woman. When this institution is created, the state needs to produce all sorts of incentives to encourage as many of individuals as it can in the institution of marriage, and that's why state provides package of government benefits and proclaims a special status of this relationship at the wedding ceremony by an public authority figure.
Now it's obvious from the above that, ipso facto, this has absolutely nothing to do with the same-sex relationships. Extending marriage benefits to same-sex couples is just as absurd as extending eco-friendly benefits to non-eco-friendly businesses, since right to marriage benefits exist only as the result of government policy that is created to encourage a man and a woman to enter into law regulated relationship. If someone decides not to enter into this type of relationship than obviously, that individual is not entitled to marriage benefits.
Someone would now respond that there are thousands and thousands of children who are being raised by same-sex couples, so this is the good reason for extending marriage benefits to them. But this is like saying: there are thousands and thousands of children who are being raised by single parents. Or, there are thousands children who are being raised by polygamous couples. Or, let us suppose that a single mom has her sister move in to raise the kids together. So, there are children who are being raised by two sisters. Children are also raised by nuns in the monastery, etc, etc.
The point is this. There are many different environments in which children can be placed in. But that doesn't mean this environments are in the best interest of a child. We know that children need both mom and dad, this is the environment that majority of children have and therefore, government needs to ensure that children's right to be raised by a mother and a father is fulfilled. And this is not done by legally recognizing and benefiting every adult relationship or environment that children found themselves in. So, from the fact that children are being raised by same-sex couples does not follow that the government should legalize gay relationships and create benefits to encourage individuals to enter into this kind of relationship.
Now we can return to Con's objections:
This is like saying: business with environmentally friendly practices has been recognized not because of the importance of the preservation of the environment, but because this business is essential in the pursuit of liberty and happiness of men.
Further, if that were true than we must publicly recognize and benefit every relationship in which someone finds most personal fulfillment. For someone this can be some form of romantic relationship, like polygamy. For someone else this is a spiritual relationship, where two monks live together in a monastery. Two people who aren't romantically interested in each other(eg. best friends) can live sa roommates. Due to strong emotional bonds between siblings, union of two unmarried sisters can be essential to them. There are all sorts of relationships that the state doesn't have anything to say about, and never did. Even if they're very loving relationships, even if they're romantically loving relationships and even if people find most personal fulfillment in them.
But why is it that every society in human history, across cultures and ages, have recognized man/woman relationship? It's because there's something inherent in the nature of men and women, and that function that they alone can provide that is essential to the marital relationship and to the creation of the next generation. It's because this relationship is essential to our very existence and survival. From the public perspective, pursuit of liberty and happiness of men has nothing to do with it.
Non sequitur. This couples exist because the state can't come by your house every Thursday night to make sure you're having sexual relations or if you have been sterilized or if you're using contraception. They exist because practical legislation must issue in demarcations that are clear and easily recognized, and therefore 'unfair' to some. We don't, for example prevent the senile elderly from voting even though they are living in the past out of touch with the issues of the day and incapable of thinking coherently about them. We don't exclude them because it would complicate the voting law enormously and in highly contentious ways. The same is true for infertile married couples.
In perhaps the most famous dissent in the history of the Supreme Court, Justice Benjamin Curtis, dissenting in the pro-racist case Dredd v. Scott, proudly (and correctly) states that "[when] the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, [are] abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution."  The question here is not whether gay marriage should be legal, but whether the US Supreme Court misinterpreted the Equality Clause. Pro has ignored this, and in effect, what Pro has done is to use his own theoretical test, which has no precedent in any SC cases whatsoever, to incorrectly and incoherently interpret the Equality Clause. Also note that Pro has not presented any coherent rebuttal to the points made in the last argument. Hence, the fact that the Equality Clause refers to individuals and not institutions (in this case) must still be upheld.
a.) Pro's Analogy
An analogy often does not deserve a mention within the rebuttal, but since the whole argument of Pro bases itself on one (faulty) analogy, one must inspect it. Pro's analogy states that legal recognition of gay marriage are similar "eco-friendly benefits [being] extended to non-eco-friendly businesses," as "[the] right to this privileges exist only as the result of policy that recognizes the importance of the preservation of the environment." This is a flawed analogy, as it incorrectly interprets the gay marriage case and moreover, it ignores the mere fundamentals of natural-law based jurisprudence.
Now, let us interpret the analogy. This analogy assumes one thing about marriage: that it is essentially unchanging throughout the years. "Eco-friendly" is exclusive and binary as a definition. As a definition, it means one thing, and shall mean the same thing over time. Marriage, as a definition, is, however, inclusive. Marriage and the nature of marriage has always changed during the years. The SC (Supreme Court) has recognized this, especially in its decisions in Loving v. Virginia. Hence, this analogy's assumption that marriage has an essential character (a Platonic form) is flawed, as marriage and its nature has always been in flux.
Moreover, this analogy fails to uphold the fact that marriage is a "fundamental" right, whilst business privileges are not, as seen in Maynard v. Hill. Marriage is "essential" for the continuation of the pursuit of happiness, which was one of the founding essentials of all liberal countries. Can the opposition then raise an acceptable analogy where a fundamental right of one whole people is to be violated for the sake of a decaying political doctrine?
Ultimately, Pro's faulty analogy can prove nothing in favor of his thesis, as it does nothing to disprove the notion that gay marriage extends the privileges of marriage towards other undeserving groups of people.
a.) Social Productivity
Pro here again ignores and misinterprets the mere fact that marriages are not recognized by society because of social productivity, but because of individuality. Let us first analyse the case that Pro presents.
Pro claims that "if [marriages are recognized, then all other types of relationship that provide happiness] must publicly be recognized and benefit every relationship in which someone finds most personal fulfillment." That is a red herring-we are not talking of other types of marriages and unions, but rather, of one type of union and solely that. Pro also claims here that "From the public perspective, pursuit of liberty and happiness of men has nothing to do with it." However, this again ignores the precedent doctrine of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has ruled on many occassions, as quoted in the Second Round, that the individual is the one gaining from the practice of marriage. Marriage is not for society, but for the individual, and this should be perfectly clear.
Apart from this, even if the social productivity test is to be valid, this does not in anyway exclude homosexual unions. Homosexual unions, although cannot directly produce babies, can produce "test-tube" babies or surrogacy pregnancies, which, in the "social productivity" test that Pro uses, would make some homosexual unions much more "socially valuable" than non-natal (or sterile) hetereosexual married couples.
b.) Case of Contraception
Pro calls this case a non-sequitur because these laws "exist because practical legislation must issue in demarcations that are clear and easily recognized." However, the opposition in no way refutes the case at hand, which is that the Supreme Court has on many occassions ruled that contraceptive usage among married couples must be protected under the US Constitution. Pro uses ad hoc reasoning and does not provide and reference any Supreme Court law to support his case. Again, as Griswald v. Connecticut bravely shows, contraception use is protected by the government not because "the state can't come by your house every Thursday night to make sure you're having sexual relations," but rather because the Constitution protects the rights to use it whenever one desires.
Pro's provided definition of marriage, "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law," is actually inconsistent with United States v. Windsor's definition, which struck-down this exclusive definition for a more inclusive definition of marriage as a union between two persons.
Moreover, Pro also asks "why is it that every society in human history, across cultures and ages, have recognized man/woman relationship? It's because there's something inherent in the nature of men and women." However, this also ignores the mere fact that, throughout history, same-sex relationships have been recognized too. In Greece, homosexuality was as open as hetereosexuality. In Rome, it was said that Roman Empire Nero married at least two males before marrying his first wife.  This, in some ways, prove that social productivity, albeit may have been the evolutionary origins and justifications for marriage, in no way is a justification for marriage in times of civilization and liberty.
To conclude, Pro's case is filled with many flaws. But the most important, the largest and perhaps the only charge that could be levied against it is the following: that Pro's case does not in anyway answer the question. The question is Constitutional interpretation: whether the SC interpreted something correctly, or not. In this case, it is gay marriage in relationship to the equality clause. Pro's answer is "gay marriage should be illegal because it fails to be socially productive and it fails to meet conservative definition of marriage." Of course, it might be. But that in no way answers the question, which is, "does the Equality Clause protect homosexuals from unions?" Pro consistently fails to uphold Constitutional standards in the treatment of marriage, as Pro always applies his own "theoretical" opinions to interpreting it. Pro also ignores previous SC cases, and in producing a merely theoretical and collectivist interpretation of the Constitution, Pro has incoherently created an interpretation so inconsistent that even if one were to use deviant logicians would have rose up and screamed: "contradiction!"
this case is pretty bad so yeh