Homosexual Marriage Should be legal in all US states and territories

While my appoint does not see a marriage license a vital record the government disagrees with my opponent. While I used to common term vital record they are legally known as vital documents. They are housed in each state in the Office of Vital Records under the health department and used by National Vital Statistics System. This includes births, deaths, marriages, divorces, adoption records, and fetal deaths. http://www.azdhs.gov... http://www.cdc.gov... Pro says “There is another fundamental right in the US that you should be able to travel freely with in the states.” I am unfamiliar with this being a right. I invite pro to validate this statement with a source. I already sited my source for the legal term of fundamental rights and what it included. Here is a direct quote: “Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include the right to marry and the right to privacy, which includes a right to contraception and the right to interstate travel.” http://www.law.cornell.edu... The full faith and credit clause does not mean that all certified documents and professions are recognized in all states automatically. A lawyer or doctor may have to apply to get a license to operate if he/she moves to another state. Teaching certificates also have to be approved by each state. Conceal carry permits may not be recognized etc.. Some states cooperate on recognizing such certificates, but they are not required too. Pro claim of the application of the Full faith and credit clause is empirically false. I agree only vital documents, federally issued certified documents, and driver’s licenses. None of my opponent’s examples on this point are one of them; however, my examples are. My opponent is using a straw man argument by not using examples that are required by law to be shared between states. The fact the when crossing a state line a marriage license in now longer valid throws off the figures that state is required to submit to the National Vital Statistics System. They have deleted a marriage statistic without an accompanying document stating it was due to divorce or a death. I agree that there need to be checks on the power of the majority. The we agree that what counts is liberty and freedom Are there laws that prevent marriage? No! Yes there are and it is the current debate topic. It is not recognized by the state then technically it is not a marriage. Your examples are for common law marriages that are not recognized under the bans. People are free to pursue happiness in this nation. Including homosexual couples. They are free to marry, they are free to move, they are free to live with whomever they desire. They are not free to marry in several states. They are not free to move anywhere in this country without losing rights of next of kin and parents’ rights over their children. I am a happily married man of 3 years to a wonderful wife… truth is, I couldn’t not care less if the Government recognizes my marriage. Weather they do or not, my wife and I recognize our marriage. My faith recognizes my marriage. I do not need the government’s recognition to be happy.You might really care. If the state does not recognize the marriage you lose the following things: The right to make health care decisions for your wife in an emergency. The right to leave you property to you wife if die and you don’t have a will. The right to have parents rights over your children automatically at birth and would have to take her to court to gain them. The right to be informed if your wife was in an accident. The right to make funeral arrangements for you wife if she passed. If the state does not recognize your marriage you are just her boyfriend and her family gets all these rights. They don’t have to ask for your input, even though you know her wishes. The law says you don’t know any of her wishes and her family does. It does not matter how long you were together. How would you like the cops to tell someone else she was in an accident and that persona have no legal obligations to ever inform you? All the “benefits” that come from a state recognized marriage should be available to all law abiding adults. However, it should have nothing to do with being “married.” The benefit I was talking about was stated above this comment. It is a benefit of marriage that you are your spouse’s next of kin. It is a benefit that you get to make the decisions that your spouse would make in case they are unable to. They are not available to all law abiding adults. This does make since because you would not want someone that just started dating a week before some tragic event to have the authority to make decisions for you. Under the law it does not matter if you have acted like you were married for 25 years if you are not officially deemed married by the state you only have the same authority as someone that just stated dating you a week ago. If pro were to argue that unwed couples should be able to adopt, I would agree with him. Con has missed my point on this matter. If you adopt a child legally in one state that should be your child in every state. You should not cross a state line and it been deemed that is not your child. Adoption records are another vital statistic. I used both due the parallels between to two issues. Marriage is not viewed as an unalienable right in the U.S. Rather it is an Inalienable right. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. While Marriage may be a “fundamental right” that does not mean that it is unalienable. Unless pro can show that marriage recognized by the State is an Unalienable right, the resolution will remain negated The flaw in my opponent argument is that unalienable rights are not protected under the law. Unalienable rights are only mentioned in the declaration of independence. All rights under the law are fundamental rights. All rights under the constitution are labeled is fundament rights. Another quote from my source: “Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process. “ http://www.law.cornell.edu... Until my opponent can show any laws for unalienable rights most of their arguments are negated.