Gay marriage

Alright, so in this round I'm going to go over my key points and respond to my opponents argument in the process. THE GOVERONMENT SHOULDN'T ACKNOWLEDGE MARRIAGE Actually, I set up this definition in round 1 and you only contested it just now in the final round, if you had a problem with this definition, you should have brought it up in Round 2. Secondly, it doesn't take authority to not acknowledge marriage, any more than it takes money to not buy something or a 2/3rd vote in congress to not pass an amendment. Third of all, the equal protection clause actually has nothing to do with this issue, it states:"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."By not acknowledging marriage, you are not denying anyone equal protection under the law, you are simply de-federalising a religious institution. Which brings me to my next point. THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE I believe I pointed out earlier in this debate that marriage is a religious institution, and hence the government should not have any part of it as per the separation of Church and State, the First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."Since marriage is a religious institution, the government is in essence functioning as a Church by acknowledging any marriage, which it should not do. This is a clear violation of the separation of church and state and violates our constitution. Which brings me to my third point. THE CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT As I stated earlier, see Round 1, the Tenth Amendment prohibits the Federal Government from exercising any powers not granted to it in the Constitution, which re laid out in Article 1 Section 8:"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;To establish Post Offices and post Roads;To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;"Nowhere in this list does it say "to acknowledge marriages."EQUALITYI don't see how acknowledging gay "marriages," protects them from discrimination in the workplace, in fact I can see how it would create the exact opposite result. A bunch of homophobes see how gay marriage has been "legalised," and decide to go kill gay people and put them on their car, or tie them to the back of a car and drive until they're ground to dust, or some other horrible thing. SOCIETAL DECAYYes, I think we should not acknowledge gay marriages since the government shouldn't acknowledge marriage, period. Also, I am not saying that we should not acknowledge marriages on account of gay marriages, if traditional marriages were acknowledged and gay marriages wouldn't, I would still advocate for the de federalisation of marriage. In regards to your second point, my entire case for this debate was something called the NAP, that is the:N.onA.ggressionP.rincipleWhich is the entrée foundation of libertarianism and basically states that we should not pass any act or decree that would increase the governments influence on the citizens lives, which includes the acknowledgement of marriage. So again, I don't care how gay these gay people are, I don't care how many men or women they get "married," to ad I never said that I believe it should be banned because it is gross (though it is gross).