The U.S.F.G. should withhold revenue from states unless they legalize same-sex marriage

1. My opponent cites the abortion issue as precedent for applying the equal protection clause in this case. He fails to recognize the key underpinnings of that decision, namely that it was a health issue. The equal protection clause was applicable in this case because a fetus is not currently considered viable as human life, and thus, since the fetus could be afforded no protection under the law, the rights of the mother as to the health and well being of her own body cannot be denied by any state under federal law. Since denying same sex marriage on a state level does not violate any individual rights (there is no "right" specifically guaranteeing the institution of marriage), then the equal protection clause is not applicable. My opponent then asserts that the "government gets out of the ethics debate by promoting equality. " This statement confuses me, as it assumes that the condition of equality is not itself an ethical viewpoint, which is certainly untrue. Pro is making quite an assumption here. Pro states that I make no mention of the Federal Highway Act. I fail to understand why this is an issue. Other than that reference, Pro has also failed to mention the Federal Highway Act. It is not my job in this debate to provide every instance in history of when the equal protection clause may have been applicable, it is up to Pro to construct his arguments and support them, and for me to construct mine and refute his. As Pro does not elaborate upon the Federal Highway Act or its relevance any further, Pro's argument in this statement seems to be "The Federal Highway Act exists. I have mentioned it, and my opponent hasn't. Therefore, vote Pro. " I urge you to the contrary. 2. My opponent continues to beg the question. He assumes that his moral position that same sex marriage equality is the desirable norm is fundamentally true, and predicates all of his arguments upon it. He fails to recognize the difference between a law passed in the interest of public safety (effects on the body, drunk driving incidents), and one purely predicated on moral grounds. I don't have enough space here to explain the difference, but suffice it to say there definitely is one. I also find it interesting that the issue he chose in support is actually one that is, by many, considered to be unconstitutional, and that the very reason for its relevancy in this discussion (application of equal protection clause) has never been explored. Wikipedia states that "However, the constitutionality of individual state enactments of the requirements of the Act on the basis of equal protection and substantive due process have never been tested in a court of law. " (source: . http://en.wikipedia.org...) 3. I will continue to dismiss this argument. My opponent does nothing to counter my dismissal, other than to say that I shouldn't do it, and then continues to make the same point I have already dismissed as an error in logic. The ease of enforcing a policy has no bearing as to whether or not it is legal to do so, I can't believe I even have to make this statement twice. Pro: Chocolate ice cream tastes better Con: Vanilla tastes better Pro: Chocolate tastes better because I have a case of it in my freezer, and I'm all out of vanilla. Con: ? ?? 4. My opponent continues to ignore the Resolution, making it convenient for him to flout relevancy in favor of arguing a moral case for same-sex marriage, which is not, nor has it ever been, the subject of our debate. We are not debating morality we are debating the application of policy. Pro fails to recognise the significance of my question to him. I asked it because I knew the answer, namely that if the position was reversed, he'd be arguing AGAINST the Federal government's authority. His position is based upon a specific moral instance, and thus changes based on application. Mine is based on the idea of making an objective system, and my stance regarding the Federal government's authority does not change, regardless of the issue or my personal feelings about it. THAT is the way the law is designed to work, impartial, not specifically crafted to a set moral outlook. It's this way for a reason, to prevent the abuse of power, and if you abuse it in the name of 'good', then you open it up to 'evil. ' 5. DOMA is a law limiting the power of the federal government. Pro's proposal extends powers not expressly granted by the constitution to the congress. My arguments in no way conflict with existing law, and they are in accordance with precedent for establishing a wide sweeping law of this nature. This is a State issue. If you want to make it a Federal issue, amend the Constitution to define same-sex marriage as a right, or specifically grant Congress the power to regulate the institution of marriage. Any attempts to the contrary are simply a means of subverting the system in order to forward your own moral agenda.