The United States federal government should legalize and recognize same sex marriage.

Rebuttals______________________________________________________________________ CON>>> The 10th Amendment grants state's rights to each state. Congress has certain powers. Regulating marriage is not one of them. Congress simply doesn't have the authority to legalize or explicitly recognize same sex marriage. Without authority over a matter, Congress should not legislate over a matter. PRO+++ State's rights do exist, but only are in place when not in violation of the Constitution. The 14th Amendment demands same sex marriage, because it demands equal protection under law. Therefore, state's rights do not apply. The Constitution supercedes state's rights, as the 10th Amendment (the one about state's rights) clearly states. The Tenth Amendment says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." It clearly states that the powers not delegated to the United States Constitution are for the states. I am arguing from a Constitutional standpoint. +++ This is true that marriage is a state's rights issue. And Congress does not have the power to force states to allow same sex marriage. However, the Supreme Court does. The 14th Amendment clearly states that no state shall deny equal protection under the laws. The Constitution overrules any state law as it has so many times in so many cases. One fantastic example is the Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virginia. Virginia, a state who has the power to regulate and recognize marriage, did not recognize interracial marriages. So the Loving couple took their case to the Supreme Court after being denied marriage in Virginia for being an interracial couple. The Supreme Court unanimously decided in favor of the Loving couple based on the 14th Amendment. This is a clear example of a time when states were overruled on their right to recognize certain marriages. It is particularly unconstitutional, based on this case, for a state to deny marriage based on discrimination. My Points______________________________________________________________________ CON>>> "1. Article 14 is regarding states, not the federal government, as stated in the resolution. It really doesn't apply in this situation." PRO+++ The United States Supreme Court is a federal institution. It is not local or statewide. Therefore, it is evidently a federal institution. Any time the Supreme Court makes a ruling, they are ruling based on what a state has done. If the Supreme Court of the United States forces all states to finally recognize same sex marriages, this will be an action taken by the federal government through the federal Supreme Court. +++ To say that Article 14 is regarding states so the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction is a concept that we both know to be false. The Supreme Court only rules when a state is doing something unconstitutional. 2. [The Declaration of Indepence and the Supreme Court building writings] [do not] have any legal value. Only the Constitution does. +++ The Constitution particularly does have legal value as you've conceded. The 14th Amendment forces all states to grant equal protection under the laws. +++ However, you cannot just throw away basic American concepts. They have no legal value, but certainly have value. If we were only to follow law and abandon all American principles, our nation would be far less great. 3.States have the power to address this issue of visitation rights, states such as mine, Maryland, have. +++ States have this power and yours, Maryland, uses it, but many states do not. Under the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution they have to follow this rule. It is not optional. State's rights only apply when not in violation of the Constitution as the 10th Amendment reads. 4.I believe you are making a policy proposal, not really making an argument. This would be a discriminatory policy, and goes against your previously cited works in argument #2. 5. I know its a shame, but the federal rights do fall into place as soon as a state recognizes marriage, or writes law that makes it the same as marriage. The problem can be solved within The Constitution, unlike how the resolution suggests. 6.Many nations including Canada and the Netherlands allow same sex marriage. Many nations also behead people for being gay. It really doesn't matter what other countries do. +++ I'm willing to concede these last points if you are. We are both in agreement that gay marrage is not harmful. Our only disagreement is the Constitution. We could clear up this debate of these last agreed upon points if you would concede. _______________________________________________________________________________ My opponent's sole argument is that Congress cannot force states to regulate marriage in any way, which I agree with. But I was not referring to the Congress when I was referring to the federal government. I was referring to the Supreme Court, which does have the right to regulate marriage if the current rule is unconstitutional. The Constitution supercedes all law, including state's rights. The tenth amendment (which is my opponent's only argument) says: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. It clearly says, "the powers not delegated by the United States Constitution." The Constitution overrules state's rights. -- Thank you for reading and voting.