I TAKE THIS PERSON

Let me make an argument.

Dicta:

          Since the state of homosexuality is biologically determined

          Since there exists no credible evidence that the raising of children is negatively impacted by whether their parents are gay/lesbian or straight

          Since the gay/lesbian community has overwhelmingly indicated that it defines its individual happiness is enhanced by being able to participate in the institution of marriage and enjoy all of its related rights

          Since existing state laws in several states interfere with gays and lesbians legally getting married and engaging in marital related activities – such as adopting children

          Since the US Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law and includes protection when any discriminatory practices are based on beliefs that deny the nature of those discriminated against (e. g., laws that discriminated against blacks’ civil rights because they were black)

Conclusion:

          Therefore, state laws that prohibit gay and lesbian marriages are unconstitutional and, by decree of the Supreme Court, shall be void as enforceable law

Warrant:

          Because the Supreme Court is the last arbiter as to whether federal or state law is constitutional or not[1]

Backing:

          As established by several precedents such as Marbury vs. Madison and Ware vs. Hylton.

          As established by the fact that federal justices of the United States are sworn, in their official capacity, to uphold the U. S. Constitution as prescribed in Article VI.

I make this argument because I hear from the opponents of the current decision by the Supreme Court to strike down state laws against marriage equality as a usurpation of state prerogative to determine whether these laws should be changed or the prerogative of the federal government through the actions of Congress and/or the President.  I would dare say that this latter course – a federal legislative approach – if taken, would have been criticized because the Constitution does not delegate the necessary power(s) to the central government to legislate the laws governing marriages – unless someone could define marriage as an interstate commerce activity.  Be that as it may, I just saw this opportunity as a legitimate way to provide a current example of how Stephen Toulmin’s[2] argument model can be used.  I cited the Toulmin model in the last posting and a previous one.  Civics teachers, I have been saying, can use this model and some ideas about rhetoric to review presidential election debates.  While I invite any criticism of the soundness of my argument, here is an example of the Toulmin model being used on a constitutional question.

---

[1] I could add another warrant:  civil tranquility is enhanced by respecting the individual rights of citizens and cite, as backing, the cases in which disrespect has led to civil disruption.

[2]  Toulmin, Stephen.  (1969).  The uses of argument.  London:  Cambridge University Press.