SPEAKER 1 AFFIRMATIVE

Good afternoon the honorable adjudicator, ms. Chairman, ms. Time keeper, ladies, and
gentlemen. I am. as the first speaker of the affirmative team. We have a very good motion
today. The motion today is this house believes that same-sex marriage should be legal.

ARGUMENT- MINORITY DISCRIMINATION

To not legalize same-sex marriage is to further perpetuate the problem of minority discrimination
that has stained human history. Both of our countries share examples of governments
institutionalizing hate and discrimination by enacting laws and decrees upon its minority citizens
in various forms that aim to limit and instill inferiority in citizens of minority groups such as Jim
and Jane Crow laws and the apartheid. Once this feeling of inferiority enters the psychology of
minorities, a lack of self-worth leads to less economic and social prosperity as well as a denial
of one's own identity as they are barraged with the message that they are lesser.
The time is always now to end this vicious pattern of discrimination against homosexuals
citizens. To legalize same sex marriage is to award the right of marriage to every citizen and
having citizens be viewed as equals in the eyes of the government. While same-sex marriage is
illegal, anti-gay legislation is easily disguised when laws only pertain to married persons, as was
the case of Mary Coughlan's amendment in Ireland
[[http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0311/gay.html]]. Once it is made legal, government attempts to
undercut the rights of same-sex couples will be transparent, and thus more easily dealt with.

ARGUMENT- IMPORTANCE OF GOVERNMENT

Some arguments against gay marriage hold that they are merely unnecessary: same-sex
couples can live as they please without social or legal recognition. But this argument
inadequately addresses the social position of same-sex couples. The onus falls upon individuals
to create situations of equality, but institutional barriers provided by the government discourage
citizen action as it feels like an exercise in futility. The "you're on your own" attitude 1) makes
gay unions seem like merely a sexual "choice", unwittingly supporting anti-gay propaganda that
claims that homosexuality is "only a choice", 2) forces same-sex couples to constantly explain
their relationship and makes it difficult for them to even refer to their relationship as a de facto
marriage, because there is no cultural norm or reference for a same-sex marriage 3) makes
same-sex couples feel disenfranchised and less willing to participate socially.

The government displeases citizens whenever it grants rights to a group that is seen as an
"other," but the discomfort of some citizens is not reason enough to deny people any of the
rights of membership of a society.

SPEAKER 1 NEGATIVE

Good afternoon the honorable adjudicator, ms. Chairman, ms. Time keeper, ladies, and
gentlemen. I am. as the second speaker of the affirmative team.

REBUTTLE- I am disagree with the argument about minority discrimination.

First and foremost, the opposition recognizes that this debate is not about the 'rightness' or
'wrongness' of homosexuality. As our positive case substantiates below, there exists reasonable
disagreement as to whether or not homosexuality is morally acceptable.

Second, we challenge the proposition to show us that a refusal to grant homosexuals the right
to marry is in any way comparable to Apartheid legislation or the Jim Crow laws which both
limited not only the occasional 'social' right, but a broad swathe of socio-economic rights relating
to education, association, public facilities, employment, political emancipation, and so on. Any
psychological and socio-economic consequences that resulted from these laws are entirely and
absolutely incomparable to the non-legalizing of same-sex marriages; these laws were designed
to control resource allocation and thus impair the prosperity and growth of a people, not to
'safeguard' a particular cultural institution. The cases are categorically different. Interestingly,
the only serious social science studies of the demand for same-sex marriage (based on the a
variety of countries as well as specific states in the USA) shows that such demand seems fairly
small [[Gallagher & Baker: 2006]]. It seems unlikely to us that this rather small issue is having
profound sociological, psychological and economic effects on people's lives.

Finally, while we concede that ideologically driven legislators will often find ways in which to
manipulate legislation to damage the interests of others, we feel we should consider the issue
realistically. In most cases homophobic legislators will only feel strongly that homosexuals
should not 'impose' on their personal cultural sphere by actually marrying. Thus, we believe, the
majority of legislators are not going to actively snipe homosexuals over and above that which is
required to keep them 'away' from marriage. It is quite unclear from proposition's argument how
they feel legislators might actually try to undercut homosexuals' rights, and citing one
scandalous piece of legislation (that can itself be openly debated as either homophobic or not)
is simply not sufficient.

I also disagree with the second argument, because it is interesting how little time proposition
has committed to the question of Government obligation and democracy, because we feel that
this is a crucial issue in this debate.

Proposition's argument about the 'importance of government' does not present ANY evidence
for the harms they claim gay persons routinely and widely suffer, like the claim that 'same-sex
couples feel disenfranchised and less willing to participate socially' or the more hilarious
suggestion that existential angst consume gay persons who do not know how to 'explain their
relationship' (try the commonly used hetero- and homo-sexual term 'partner'?). It is tempting to
guess that these claims stem from a conservative, homophobic camp (no pun intended), not a
liberal one! We would happily concede these harms if Team USA can produce solid evidence of
gay persons hiding in their houses, or of would-be socialites unwilling to 'participate socially'. Or
evidence of the apparently huge burden suffered around the dinner table when Jim declares
that Tom is his 'life partner' rather than his 'husband'. For now, these harms are mere
paternalistic - patronizing, even - assertions on *behalf* of the gay community.

ARGUMENT- Heres my argument.

MORAL AND LEGAL PLURALISM IN RELATION TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IS

ACCEPTABLE

First, it is important to recognize that the explanation for why different viewpoints exist on
whether or not same-sex marriage should be legal is because different people, and
governments, have different intuitions about whether or not homosexuality, per se, is
acceptable. It is hard to imagine that this debate would be a live one in a world in which
everyone agreed that homosexuality is acceptable. It would follow with moral ease that legal
systems should, and would, reflect such moral consensus. So, even though the same-sex
marriage debate is often articulated without reference to the messy background debate about
homosexuality's moral status, it is the real driver of disagreement about same-sex marriage in
the first place.

Two important questions stem from all of this. Firstly, can there be reasonable moral
disagreement on the status of homosexuality? Secondly, what are the implications of question
one for the debate on same-sex marriage?

We answer the first question in the affirmative. It follows from this that a legal plurality on same-
sex marriage is acceptable also.

ON REASONABLE MORAL AND LEGAL DISAGREEMENT:

STEP 1] many ethical views on homosexuality exist. On the conservative end of the spectrum,
often informed by religious textual authority, is the view that homosexuality offends the
prescriptions of God - or a God-alternative - and since God is the sole source of moral authority,
homosexuality is wrong.

Since no rational justification can be proffered for distinguishing between gay persons and
heterosexual persons in relation to the distribution of legal regimes like marriage, it is irrational,
and therefore immoral, to deny gay persons' right to marry.

Between these end-points, a range of views exist between e.g. homosexuality is ok but
marriage is an institution with a unique religious aetiology which should not extend to
homosexuals.

These three positions - there are many others - constitute proof of opposition's contention that
there is a plurality of moral views on homosexuality.

More importantly, it is ok that these diverse views exist. We cannot adjudicate between them.

It is precisely because moral views reflect the socio-cultural norms within which they were
developed that moral objectivity is elusive. Either way, we cannot adjudicate between these
matters of taste. They are just that - differences in taste.

Similarly, moral intuitions are just reflections of moral taste between persons, and governments,
around the world. While I may regard your moral taste as 'bad taste', I cannot give mine priority
over yours in determining and ranking moral viewpoints on particular issues like homosexuality.
Thefore, there can be, and indeed there is, reasonable disagreement on whether or not
homosexuality is morally acceptable.

STEP 2] Given, therefore, that there is reasonable disagreement about the ethical status of
homosexuality, it follows that legal pluralism on the issue is neither surprising nor unacceptable.
After all, there is an important relationship between law and morality: the legitimacy of a legal
system partly derives from reflecting the social mores of the citizens who are subject to that
legal system. If there is a gap between the moral norms of a legal system, and the moral
convictions of that society, then the legal system's credibility is at stake.

This is not to say that law making process is a crude matter of doing a headcount of the views of
citizens. Not so. Of course if the views of a citizenship is beyond the pale, then a progressive
legal system could challenge it. If, for example, 90% of a citizenry thought that twins should be
killed, it would be hard to argue that a legal system should unthinkingly reflect this wish.

However, homosexuality is not a matter in respect of which ethical disagreements are so easily
solved. The range of moral attitudes are not 'beyond the pale' but for the liberal one Team USA
is sustaining. It is ok for a view that regards homosexuality as immoral to exist. If this is
conceded - as it surely must be - then it is ok for a legal system in a country, through whatever
the law-making processes are that exist in that country - to reflect this view in its policy (or not)
on same-sex marriage.

It follows that moral and legal pluralism in relation to same-sex marriage is acceptable.

SPEAKER 2 AFFIRMATIVE

Good afternoon the honorable adjudicator, ms. Chairman, ms. Time keeper, ladies, and
gentlemen. I am. as the second speaker of the affirmative team.

REBUTTLE- I am disagree with the arguments.

We do not reject the opposition's claim that conflicting ethical theories regarding homosexuality
exist. We do however, reject the idea that government should also be conflicted between these
ethics. Religious arguments against homosexuality have no place in government legislation, just
like the bible's support for slavery or it's subjection of women no longer do. Similarly, while
marriage may be religiously derived, it does not stand as a singularly religious institution today,
and therefore it need not conform to religious principles. Civil marriages are perfectly legal, and
popular, and have the exact same status and terminology as ones done in a religious setting. In
fact, civil registration is necessary for marriage, the presence of a religious figure is not.
Therefore a secular government has no choice but to regard homosexuality within a value
ethics, not a religious ethics, and deem it such. By decriminalizing and providing safeguards
against discrimination based on sexuality, most governments have already affirmed this. No
moral ambiguity remains for purposes of legislation.

Furthermore, we find is ironic that the opposition would argue for plurality, while at the same
time taking the stance that a majorities view should be allowed to ban a minorities rights. By
allowing same sex marriage (but not forcing it upon heterosexual Christians like opposition
seems to believe), the government allows for the plurality of action and accommodate both
parties. By restricting this right, we are not being pluralistic, we are being majoritarian.

The opposition has yet to define one demonstrable harm that comes from the legality of same-
sex marriage. Personal comfort levels and religious norms are violated constantly by legal
mandate, but states stop short of encroaching on anyone's right to believe that these things are
wrong, disgusting or sinful. The opposition misses the distinction between the public results of
permitting same-sex marriage and the private impacts of the action. There are a multitude of
opinions regarding relationships, but we leave private individuals to determine for themselves
how to conduct their lives without government interference.

Recently, the High Court of Delhi in India overturned a century-and-a-half old anti-sodomy law,
which not only shows governments can get out of the bedroom, but that progressive societies
can change their minds about what was once ethically unacceptable.
[[http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/APS/judgement/02-07-2009/APS02072009CW74552001.pdf]] Similarly,
Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 overturned that state's anti-sodomy laws.
[[http://www.apa.org/psyclaw/lawrence-v-texas.pdf]] In 2005, Fiji overturned its anti-sodomy
laws in response to a conviction of two gay men. [[http://www.iglhrc.org/cgi-
bin/iowa/article/takeaction/resourcecenter/366.html]] Also in 2005, on the grounds of the existing
laws being discriminatory, a judge overturned the anti-sodomy laws of Hong Kong.
[[http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/aug/05082406.html]] The Knesset of Israel, a state that
literally aligns itself with a religious ideology, is considering making same-sex marriage legal,
and even including within the legislation a clause of gender neutrality.
[[http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=3320&MediaType=1&Category=24]] However, most
Israelis still consider homosexuality an aberration. [[http://www.angus-
reid.com/polls/view/33967/homosexuality_an_aberration_for_many_israelis]] We applaud the
lawmaking body of a country that takes a stance for equal rights of all citizens, even if some,
perhaps most of the citizens in question are displeased with the expansion of rights for a
minority. The global trend has been an expansion of rights, and we see no clear reason not to
take a firm stance and promote the rights expand further.

ARGUMENT- EXPANDING THE RIGHT TO MARRY SERVES THE STATE

It must be understood that marriage is an instrument toward subsequent rights and interactions
with the state that is being denied to a group. The state perceives that it has some benefit from
creating marriage as a legal institution, and it does, although not to the same degree that those
who engage in marriage receive benefits.

Marriage decreases legal ambiguity for individuals in a society, and lessens the burden upon
the state to clarify ambiguities that result. Marriages are a mechanism to clarify next of kin,
responsibilities toward children, the people who are impacted by a legal will upon the death of a
spouse, and many other interactions that individuals have between themselves, each other, and
the state. [[http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/22/opinion/oew-davidson-lavy22]] Absent that,
the legal system would be strained beyond belief in an effort to untangle the messes that would
be the result of having no legal recognition of marriage. Legalizing same-sex marriage will
lessen this burden further, but it is a secondary concern when facing the rights and freedoms of
the individuals in question.

SPEAKER 2 NEGATIVE

Good afternoon the honorable adjudicator, ms. Chairman, ms. Time keeper, ladies, and
gentlemen. I am. as the second speaker of the negative team.
REBUTTLE- EXPANDING THE RIGHT TO MARRY SERVES THE STATE Proposition's
primary claim here falls because it is both and exercise in hyperbole and is simply irrelevant.

The proposition talks of marriage being crucial to the legal system, and that without marriage we
would be 'strained beyond belief' trying to 'untagle the messes' that would arise. Of course this
hyperbole, not in any way reflected by their source (check it if you don't believe us!) is (1) false
and (2) general to all marriages, not specifically homosexual ones. Considering that only around
1% of the US population is openly homosexual [[http://www.adherents.com/adh_dem.html]] (and
let's face it, that isn't going to increase very much if we control for 'closet' homosexuals) we see
that legalizing homosexual marriages will have a tiny impact on the state's burden. This point is
simply unsubstantiated and irrelevant.

It is almost laughable to read and re-read the proposition's serious (?!) contention that
"Marriages are a mechanism to clarify next of kin, responsibilities toward children, the people
who are impacted by a legal will upon the death of a spouse, and many other interactions that
individuals have between themselves," Does a gay person in a civil union - or in a one night
stand, for that matter - really not know who his or her next-of-kin is?! Does a dad need to be
married to another man to know his legal (and social) parental responsibilities in relation to his
kids from a previous relationship?! These arguments fall far short of constituting an independent
reason to legalise same-sex marriage.

Besides, many of the potential complications that are legitimate (e.g. one man living with
another - his partner - over a lifetime, without marriage recognition) can be dealt with through
other legal instruments, so same-sex marriage is not essential. The Civil Unions regime in the
UK, for example, distribute *identitcal* beneifts on partners. Similarly, in South Africa, both gay
and straight couples can choose either civil unions or marriage - there is no difference, other
than symbolism, in the legal consequences.

We conclude, then, that the legal regimes which proposition imagine to be at stake in this
debate, are not at stake. This leg of their case falls flat.

ARGUMENT- IT CREATES A SOCIAL BACKLASH THAT DAMAGES SUBSTANTIVE

EQUALITY FOR HOMOSEXUALS
As our clash-outline promised, a second substantive justification for not meddling intrusively
with the status quo is that Team USA is, ironically, shooting itself in the liberal foot. The very aim
of promoting the interests of gay persons will likely be harmed by this proposition.

We contend that substantive equality for homosexuality is more important than formal equality.
Substantive equality is at risk here & so gives us yet another basis for siding with opposition.

Here is why.

The proposition's case is an attempt to grant homosexuals what might be called 'formal'
equality' - nominally equal rights or sameness of treatment on the statute books. On team
opposition we are far more interested in securing for homosexuals 'substantive' equality -
broadly equal treatment with broadly equal consequences. While the two are not necessarily
mutually exclusive, the former does not necessarily bring about the latter, nor is the latter
predicated on the former.

As we have already suggested, it is incumbent upon proposition to show that formal equality
brings about substantive equality; we believe that too progressive formal equality can actually
damage our attempt to gain substantive equality for homosexuals.

A good case study is, in fact, South Africa. South Africa was the first country in the world to
constitutionally enshrine gay person's right to not be discriminated against on grounds of sexual
orientation [[http://www.info.gov.za/documents/constitution/1996/96cons2.htm#9]] .
Subsequently, and to little surprise, the constitutional court declared the existing Marriage Act
invalid [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-
sex_marriage_in_South_Africa#2005_Constitutional_Court_decision]] and thereafter the South
African parliament enacted legislation that enables gay persons to be legally married
[[http://www.home-affairs.gov.za/media_releases.asp?id=370]].

Yet, despite this formal equality enjoyed by gay South Africans, there has been a social
backlash. Indeed, it is fair to describe South Africa as deeply homophobic, with a huge number
of cases of so-called 'corrective rape' for example [cases in which lesbians have been raped in
an attempt to 'turn them straight'; some are even killed].

Evidence of this phenomen being widespread has been documented and publicly reported by
very credible bodies, such as the South African Human Rights Commission, as well as LGBT
pressure groups, like OUT
[[http://www.news24.com/Content/SouthAfrica/News/1059/0dc26685e8f3408d9c72ffa6d888499
2/12-03-2008-09-13/Corrective_rape_at_schools]]
[[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/12/eudy-simelane-corrective-rape-south-africa]]
According to Triangle - one of the prominent gay organisations in South Africa - no less than
86% of lesbian women in townships around Cape Town live in fear of sexual assault because of
their orientation. Same-sex marriage has fuelled, rather than stemmed, these homophobic
patterns.

The moral of this case study is clear: despite liberal constitutionalists - like Team USA - around
the world deceptively using South Africa as an example of same-sex marriage legislation being
enacted, South Africa showcases both 1) the impotency of using the law as a blunt instrument
for bringing about attitudinal changes ; 2) more importantly, shows the social backlash that can
happen if a bottom-up strategy for ethical dialogue is substituted for top-down legal prescription.

Countries that are even more homophobic - like Botswana or Namibia, say, both of whom have
constitutional systems and are members of the UN, and so must fall within the range of
countries Team USA have in mind - are likely to see worse backlashes against gay persons.

Formal equality is thus a danger to gay persons' enjoyment of substantive equality, the latter
being more important. Gradualism is much more sensible - bringing about incremental changes
in the lot of gay persons through securing more uncontentions rights for now, such as gay
persons' right to live in a safe environment. Same-sex marriage, as our case study shows, is
neither necessary nor sufficient to make environments safer for gay persons; indeed, same-sex
marriage can militate against that aim in many contexts, liberal societies included.

SPEAKER 3 AFFIRMATIVE

Good afternoon the honorable adjudicator, ms. Chairman, ms. Time keeper, ladies, and
gentlemen. I am. as the third speaker of the affirmative team.

REBUTTLE- IT CREATES A SOCIAL BACKLASH THAT DAMAGES SUBSTANTIVE

EQUALITY FOR HOMOSEXUALS

Corrective rape is not caused by same-sex marriages. In the links the opposition posted, we see
incidents of rape in school of outed unmarried individuals. Their other link attributes the rise in
corrective rape not to a "backlash" but to the highly publicized rape of Eudy Simelane: "[S]ince
then a tide of violence against lesbians in South Africa has continued to rise". The problem is
that the SA government has failed to take sufficient action against these crimes, not that they
have legalized gay marriage.

The South African government was clearly aware that there was "overwhelming opposition to
this bill from people throughout South Africa" [[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6147010.stm]]
when they legalized same-sex marriage. It affords same-sex couple legal stature and
recognition in a very homophobic atmosphere. It is hard to see how "gradualism" could have
prevented these acts of violence. Indeed, more immediate legal action continues to be called for
from the gay community in South Africa. [[http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/lgbti/58066]]

ARGUMENT- MORE THAN JUST GAY RIGHTS

The transgender and intersex communities are often legislated into confusing situations
because of mandates for opposite-sex marriage. Depending on how "sex" is legislated in a
particular area, these individuals are arbitrarily prevented from marriage with long-term partners
who may or may not be intersexed, gay, or transgendered themselves. Since "[t]here is no one
biological parameter that clearly defines sex," [[http://www.isna.org/legal]], these individuals are
often forced to choose a gender identity that does not reflect their biological or emotional reality.

In the transgender community in Australia, the law, previous to Feb. 2003, allowed transgender
individuals to recognize themselves as the gender they had become except for in marriage. In
the famous case of Kevin and Jennifer, it was found to be unconstitutional to assign someone's
gender based upon their designated gender at the time of their birth.
[[http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/family_ct/2003/94.html]] Due to the Marriage Act of
1961, legal marriage is still held to be only between a "man and a woman". This means that in
Australia Post-operative transgendered persons may marry persons of the opposite gender to
their current gender. Pre-operative transgendered persons are not allowed marriage and those
who change their gender after marriage are still in a legal gray area. We see that this puts
undue stress on transgendered persons to obtain very expensive surgery to change their
gender if they wish to have a legally recognized marriage.

Intersexed individuals are those persons whose sexual identity is ambiguous in relation to legal
requirements either because their genitalia/gonads are doubly gendered or missing or because
they have mixed primary or secondary sexual characteristics. Since at least 1 in 1000 births
show intersex characteristics [[http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency]], this is a problem affecting
significant portions of any society. Mandating gender-difference for marriage creates significant
problems for these people. in those places of the world where marriage is seen as paramount,
parents or doctors may perform surgery to "normalize" the appearance of genitalia. This is
estimated to be performed for one to two out of every 1000 live births. The size of one's clitoris
or penis should not be the basis for a medical procedure without the will of the patient. Columbia
has reflected this in their decision to prevent such surgeries from occurring
[[http://www.isna.org/node/97]]. The fear of not being able to marry off a child often leads to
operations which are "inadequate" and need to be repeated later in life.
[[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CYD/is_13_36/ai_76877656/]]

ARGUMENT-

SPEAKER 3 NEGATIVE TEAM

Good afternoon the honorable adjudicator, ms. Chairman, ms. Time keeper, ladies, and
gentlemen. I am. as the third speaker of the negative team.

REBUTTLE- MORE THAN JUST GAY RIGHTS

The argument labelled 'more than just gay rights' is a complete red herring in this debate, and
therefore should be ignored as a reason to legalise same-sex marriage.

Yes, there is a lot of confusion around transgendered, and intersexed, persons' rights, identities
and social status, and entitlements as human beings. We concede all of that.

But what does that have to do with the debate at hand?

The only rational link we can impute to the proposition team - since it is unclear from their
superflouous entry - is the embedded (but, unhelpfully unexpressed) claim that same-sex
marriage should be legalised in order to help improve the social and legal status of the
transgender and intersex communities.

But that is nonsense! For one thing, if same-sex marriage is legalised, we will still - rightly or
wrongly - not be accomodating persons who do not fit the straight-gay dichotomy, or the male-
female one, with the gay and heterosexual marriage regimes that would then be on the statute
books. Proposition must show evidence, or at least argue why it is *likely* that, once same-sex
marriage is legalised, it will be a mere small step towards marriage regimes that allow for other
genders and sexualities to also be accomodated.

At any rate, at best this argument is an extremely weak tangential *potential* benefit for a very
small minority - transgendered and intersexed persons - and so it is a weak independent reason
for legalising same-sex marriage.

We reject it as an unconvincing, and unsubstantiated, red herring.

ARGUMENT- FORCING CHANGE IN LIBERAL DEMOCRACIES IS ITSELF ILLIBERAL

The force of proposition's case is that it is a 'defense' of liberalism - allowing all people, no
matter who they are, to access rights and freedoms. We clash with this directly, and contend
that forcing legislative changes (that bring about marginal benefits to small numbers of society)
on a country that is clearly averse to such changes is itself illiberal. And it is precisely those
countries in which this debate falls - we are not contesting whether states that already have
functioning systems for same-sex marriage should abandon those systems, but whether, in
opposition's words " bob loblaw".

Liberalism is in essence the preference for self determination at the most personal level. But a
state (and the body of laws encapsulated by that state) is merely an abstraction of personal
preferences and wills, and hence, in a classical Rousseauian sense (the same beliefs on which
US federalism is predicated), a liberal state's norms, practises, and legislation, must be defined
from the bottom up rather than the top down. It is only through determining the rules that bind
one at the level of the state that one can truly practise liberal self determination. If we accept
proposition's proposal and force same-sex marriage upon (effectively) all societies, we are in
fact incurring a great cost to the very liberal project we are intending to promote and protect, for
an as yet unclear benefit. Remember, this is not, as proposition believes, the profound
disenfranchising of homosexuals by removing their rights to access economic opportunities or
public services and utilities.

The reality is that, at present, the majority of people in the 'contested' countries of this debate do
in fact feel that same-sex marriage should not be allowed (that's why these countries are the
interesting cases). Gallup polls as recent as 2009 show this to be true, and show that in those
states which have forced through same-sex marriage legislation against the will of their
population have not seen a rapid decrease in resistance to same-sex marriage
[[http://www.gallup.com/poll/118378/majority-americans-contine-oppose-gay-marriage.aspx]].
We advocate precisely the attitude of California's Supreme Court who refused to overturn a
public referendum (Prop 8) on homosexual marriages that came down in the negative; it is not
the place of legislators or judges to impose, illiberally, legislation on the collective.