Gay marriage should be legal

Important Note: Acheiving the same goal by different means are two different things, they mean different things. Calling myself out, but my debate is partly based partly (like 60%) on semantics but the legal system lives off of semantics, so though I am not a fan of it, it must be used when you talk about laws. Making gay marraige legal is to make homosexual marraige legal. This means writing a law that says homosexual marriage should be legal. This creates the legal term gay marriage, creating a difference between the previous marraige and the new gay marraige. The largest roadbloack is state laws similar to DOMA that define marraige. "In 1996, President Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which, for federal purposes, defined marriage as 'only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife' ".Ways to allow homosecuals to marry:A. Making gay marraige legal. Adding a law that adds/amends DOMA style laws. By ameding DOMA, there must be a difference between marraige, the civil union of a male and female, and the gay marraige, allowing same sex marraige. This is the solution that cause problems. This is the solution we are arguing and that I am arguing against.B. Making no such thing as gay and traditional marraige. Removal of DOMA and replacement with a law that does not differentiate in marraige. First you would have to get two bills for congress (removing Doma, then replacing it), which could leave the US in a state of limbo if the first finals. Finally, things would need to be solved at a state level. Which varies per state, but it would mean removing or amending a number of laws. This the solution I advocate but is not making gay marraige legal. It just means changing how we express gender in laws.Analogies can be expressed as:A. Red apples are the legal apples. And changing this to, red apples and green apples are the legal apples. But other laws and court cases say "Red apples must be healthy and from a tree". What about green apples? What if the the apple changes color, what now? What happens when laws refer to a specfic red apple tree (mother) and another specfic red apple tree (father)? By making it fair to green apples, you just made the system complicated and unfair to green and red apples for the next 50 years.B. Removing the previous law and saying, "Apples are legal". In the court of law, there is no green or red apple, there is only apples. Green apples are not legal, there is no such thing as "green" apples.Rebuttals:1. How do you define in a marriage of two females who is the wife/mother?Take Idaho for example: "The earnings and accumulations of the wife and of her minor children living with her or in her custody, while she is living separate from her husband are the separate property of the wife."http://www.hg.org...The point still stands.2. But there is a difference. As solution A states, expressing a difference between marraige and gay marraige would mean that gay marraige would not inherent court cases and laws expressing gay marraige without each court case and law being amended.3. Again, have fun changing laws on every state, then dealing with the court cases. :)4. Look at state laws concerning divorce (which is most laws concerning marraige). Not every single one, but most have differences between genders.http://www.hg.org...http://www.law.cornell.edu... has less but it ignores other laws that influence marraige (often banning gay marraige).5. Yeah they have the liberty to do as they please. Gays are represented in court as equal citizens to everyone else. That does not mean laws are equal to all. Taxes, affirmative action, etc are all unequal and legal.6. You never said the debate was removing gender from laws. You said gay marraige should be legal. Again I refer to the difference between genderless laws and making gay marraige legal.What I am NOT arguing gay marraige should be illegal. I am agruing that gay marriage should not be legal. Different things (semantics and definition in the court of law)