Gay Marriage should be legalized in the US

Let me start off by saying- I did not mean for my second round argument to be the same as my first argument. I'm new to DDO and accidentally copied that rather that putting a new argument. For the sake of the debate, I will start my argument now. First and foremost, allow me to clarify something that was brought up in my opponents previous argument. My opponent says "it is a debate about whether we should gay marriage into legislation on a federal level instead of leaving it to the individual states to handle it." Let me remind my opponent, and the judges that the resolution states: "Gay Marriage should be legalized in the US," not "BY the US." I believed I was clear in my intent with this resolution, although because of my own mistake of not clarifying my point in my argument(s), I will debate the topic con has developed. Without further ado, let's begin. C1: not allowing gay marriage is discriminatory The so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was signed into law under President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996. DOMA mandates unequal treatment of legally married same-sex couples, selectively depriving them of the 1,138 protections and responsibilities that marriage triggers at the federal level. (1) DOMA was created to resolve unequal treatment of gays, however (as we know), in multiple states, gays are unequal to marry. My question to my opponent, is if gays are still unable to be married, how can they be equal to heterosexual couples? Recent census data leave no question that gay families live in every corner of the United States. Denied the freedom to marry, they are discriminated against by their home states, and also targeted for an additional layer of discrimination from the federal government: the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). DOMA harms married same-sex couples by withholding the more than one thousand federal responsibilities and protections accorded all other married couples, including Social Security survivor benefits, tax fairness, access to health coverage, and recognition of family ties for immigration purposes. DOMA divides married Americans into two classes, those with marriages the federal government likes, and those married to someone of whom the federal government disapproves. *And DOMA discriminates against states*, telling them that even if they end marriage discrimination, the couples they legally married will be carved into two groups: " a mandatory "gay exception" to the normal respect for marriage. (2) Under the law, marriage touches every aspect of life, from birth to death, with taxes in between. *Denial of the freedom to marry is one of the harshest inequalities inflicted on lesbian and gay families, and discrimination by their own government.* Government has no business blocking people seeking to care for their loved ones, particularly in these tough economic times, nor should it punish children by depriving their families of the critical safety net and meaning marriage brings. (2) C2: by leaving legalization in the hands of states, the USFG is allowing discrimination to occur Considering my failure to properly portray the resolution (I assume), I will argue that the USFG should legalize this marriage. When evaluating this topic, and when looking at the previous contention, we see denying marriage to someone because of their sexuality is not only wrong, but discriminatory. Knowing that some states still refuse to be pragmatic to this change, the Federal Government is abhorrently ignoring the hundreds of thousands of Americans that they are denying marriage to. This is flawed, discriminatory, and must be discontinued with a full legalization of homosexual marriage inside of the United States. As said earlier, denial of the freedom to marry is one of the harshest inequalities inflicted on lesbian and gay families, and discrimination by their own government. Government has no business blocking people seeking to care for their loved ones. (2) REBUTTAL: My opponent uses the constitution as his primary reason that the USFG cannot and should not legalize gay marriage nationwide. Robert Nagel, Professor of Constitutional Law at Colorado Law School, answers this when he says "At first glance, a national rule defining marriage would seem to conflict with the fundamental principle that the federal government has only limited and enumerated powers. After all, the states have long had primary responsibility over marriage as a legal institution. However, similar intuitions have often proven ephemeral as the scope of the central government's authority has expanded inexorably to include the regulation of agriculture, manufacturing, the environment, and myriad other areas. Congress could also rely on its power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment and, although nothing is certain when predicting constitutional decisions, the Court probably would uphold a statute based on enforcing the rights to due process and equal protection." (3) The fact of the matter is, is it's possible, it can be done, and it should be done. Not only does the USFG have the power to legalize marriage for all, they're blatantly discriminating towards homosexuals as they refuse to take steps of action towards this problem. When evaluating this topic, we must look at a cost-benefit analysis. When doing this, I come to the question, "what that is truly harmful will come about when the USFG legalizes marriage for all inside of the United States?" I ask my opponent, and the judges the exact same question, so we can all come to a conclusion. I'll end with this, from Evan Wolfson, Founder and President of Freedom to Marry: "America should not be a house divided in which couples and those they deal with, including employers, are forced to play "now you're married, now you're not." In the United States, we don't have second-class citizens, and we shouldn't have second-class marriages. It's time to follow the Golden Rule"treating others as you want to be treated"and the Constitution, which commands equal justice for all, and end marriage discrimination nationwide." (4) For all these reasons- vote pro. Thank you. (1) http://www.respectformarriage.org... (2) http://www.usnews.com... (3) http://www.usnews.com... (4) http://www.usnews.com...