Same-sex marriage (USA ONLY)

What is marriage? Contradiction has posted in the comments that I need to define marriage. I will argue that marriage is a legal union that creates kinship. My opponent has claimed that he does NOT disagree with my syllogism. He has admited that marriage is a fundamental right and there is no more need to discuss. However, in a nut shell, my opponent has used DOMA and the legal definition to show why same-sex couples should not be granted that right to marry. He claims that they cannot fit that definition of a man and a woman. I agree. My opponent has given me this syllogism. 1) The right for a man to be legally united to a woman (or a woman to be legally united to a man) is a fundamental right2) All citizens are entitled to the fundamental rights3) Therefore, same-sex couples have the right to be legally wed to a woman (if a man) or man (if a woman). I agree with 1 and 2. I disagree with 3. Same-sex couples do NOT have the right to marry, of course, unless they marry someone of the opposite sex, then they will not be "same-sex" couple. The very question is whether the definition should be changed. My opponent has done nothing more than appealing to tradition by claiming same-sex couples should not be able to marry on the basis of the current definition. Marriage, in many states, was once defined as a man and a woman of the same race. Therefore, by your logic, interracial couples should not be able to marry because they did not fit that definition. We obviously seen how that changed and thus I argue that the current definition should also change. In other words, my opponent just re-stated the resolution. The definition of marriage is not as clear cut as it may seem. Each state has its own meaning of marriage. I encourage my opponent to take a look at this chart and see how different marriage is between state and state. . http://www.clgs.org...What is DOMA? I will argue that DOMA is unconstitutional and should be repealed. I will give you a couple reasons why. Before I can get into detail as to how it is unconstitutional, we must first understand what DOMA is. DOMA, otherwise called the "Defense of Marriage Act" was a bill signed in 1996 by president Bill Clinton. DOMA defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. In addition, it applies that "[N]o state may be requiered to to recognize as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered a marriage in another state. " (1) In other words, if Maine recognizes a same-sex union, I get married under there same-sex marriage law, and I move to Florida, Florida does not have to legally recognize that marriage. DOMA is unconstitutional1. Congress does NOT have the constitutional power to decide when, or which, state acts get interstate respect of when people are stripped of those rights as they travel through the country. 2. DOMA makes America a "house divided" for the couples who would be unsure whether they remaine married whenever they move or travel from state to state.3. DOMA violates constitutional protection that forbids the Government from discriminating by creating disfavored, second-class citizens and disfavored, second-class marriages. Such unconstitutional election-year bills apeal to anti-gay disapproval, dislike, or discomfort the very animus rejected by the Supreme Court as a basis for government discrimination4. Most importantly, DOMA violates the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit clause, which requires that official acts and proceedings of each state be recognized by sister states. Congress does NOT have the authority to decide when, or which state acts get interstate respect or when people are stripped of those rights. (2)5. Lastly, congress does NOT have the power to give the legal meaning of marriage! The constitution clearly states that whatever powers are not listed in the constitution, it is given to the state. Begging the question, how can congress pass a bill that allows for gay marriage? The state cannot create a law that deprives people of fundamental rights. Therefore, the state has no power to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. My opponent has burden of proof to show beyond a resonable doubt that this legal definition is substandard and should be changed. You are correct. However, you have the burden of proof to show beyond a resonable doubt that this legal definition should stay the same. In conclusionI have given good reasons for DOMA to be unconstitutionalI have shown how congress can pass a bill allowing gay marriageBack to you, con. Source1. . http://en.wikipedia.org...2. . http://www.ucc.org...