Resolved: The US Constitution requires that same-sex couples be given the legal right to marry.

Since Con has attacked some of my argument"s assumptions, I will address the semantic contention first and the more concrete arguments, second. For convenience, I have listed Con"s arguments by numbers and my responses (Pro) by letters (I may have more than one response to a single argument). I apologize for any redundancies, as this is my first debate and I want to cover all my bases. I. Semantics Con"s argument boils down to a discussion on what constitutes a "requirement" and whether "interpretation" can impose a constitutional "requirement." If you are judging this round, I urge you to look back at Con"s arguments for a refresher; this may become a complex debate. In any event, I will try to make this part of the debate as clear as possible by highlighting Con"s arguments from the second round before my responses: 1. "The Constitution"cannot"require anyone to do anything." A. Stipulations: By accepting an invitation for this debate, Con accepted the definition of "requires," which was explicitly stated to be "deems to be necessary." This definition denotes the legal sense as per the syntax of the resolution "requires granting same-sex couples the legal right to marry." This definition can in no way be taken to mean a sort of physical force. Con"s complaints about "requirement" only have bearing in the word"s relationship to a challenge of "interpretation." I will take up a more extensive discussion of "requirement" and "interpretation" in my next sub-section. B. Permutation: My opponent suggest that individuals, not laws, create and enforce requirements, and while it may be true that judges might articulate their own beliefs when articulating certain liberties or privileges contained in the Constitution, this does not preclude the fact that the Constitution contains requirements itself (insofar as judges have interpreted these requirements under the authority of Marbury v Madison). I will elaborate on this concept in just a moment. C. Literature: Legal literature supports Pro"s choice of the word "requires" and demonstrates the Constitution can in fact "require": "In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution requires the states to provide defense attorneys to criminal defendants"" 2. "Interpretation =/= requirement by the Constitution"people who follow the law of their own free will"require others to also follow the law and their interpretation." A. Concept of a Legal Requirement: The Constitution is a body of laws, whose mandates, meaning, and content is malleable depending on the decisions of the Supreme Court. Police officers, judges, and other officials enforce the laws, and to say that the Constitution "requires" a certain liberty or privilege presupposes the legal and pragmatic force of that document. To legally "require" a liberty or action, is to say the Constitution not only allows for such a thing to exist but also necessitates ("deems to be necessary") the existence of such an institution according to the existing body of precedent provided by legal interpretation. "Interpretation" has long been a necessary and proper role of the Judicial Branch; it explicates the contents of the Constitution (Marbury v Madison). The Constitution cannot be read verbatim, as Con supposes, because it asserts generalized concepts like "due process" or "liberty" that require further explication and understanding. B. Interpretation and Requirement: Cross-apply sub-point C from above. Once the Constitution has been interpreted to provide a certain liberty (like the entitlement of a defendant to legal counsel), it now exists as a legal requirement, which is all the resolution asks Pro to prove. Given the body of existing precedent and interpretation, if Pro has successfully argued that the Constitution requires giving same-sex couples the legal right to marry, vote Pro. C. Con Implicitly Concedes Pro"s Interpretation of "Requires:" "Some can argue.. [the Constitution], through its lawful institution, install[s] a certain set of requirements" " Now, "Installing a requirement" = "creating a requirement" and creating a requirement in the legal sense is the same as "requiring a requirement" to exist. The last phrase, of course, is redundant, so the proper verb is "requires," as the resolution dictates. II. Other Arguments "1. 1st Amendment/ Contradiction" A. Marriage is a also a Civil Institution: This is why couples need a government marriage certificate and why thousands of various federal and state laws regulate marriage. The legalization of same-sex marriage does not affect religious freedoms or institutions. B. The 1st Amendment Protects: The 1st Amendment would protect religious institutions from these kinds of constitutional requirements. Again, my argument only concerns whether same-sex couples can be legally married in the eyes of the government. C. Con has not submitted evidence for other, relevant contradictions. "2. The Constitution does not mention marriage." A. Equal Protection/ Due Process: Though you are right to assert the Constitution does not explicitly mention marriage, the Constitution is built as a sort of blueprint for the regulation and application of law (so it doesn"t have to mention marriage to protect equal application of that institution). As per my previous argument, the Constitution does guarantee protection from "unjustifiable discrimination" and affords equal protection/ due process at the state and federal level (this has been uncontested). So, as long as the government grants marriage, recognizes marriage, and regulates marriage, the Constitution recognizes the imperative for equality within this institution because any laws against same-sex marriage fail the "strict scrutiny test" (also uncontested)." B. 5th and 9th Amendments/ Loving v Virginia: The 9th Amendment explicitly states not every right that exists has been explicitly described in the Constitution, and the 5th Amendment protects against intrusions upon these liberties. Privacy, for example, is not explicitly described in the Constitution, but it has since long been upheld as a protected liberty under the 5th Amendment. "3. 10th Amendment, left to the states"Contradiction" A. 10th Amendment prohibits states from violating the US Constitution: The relevant text reads, "The powers not delegated"nor prohibited by it to the States"" Any state laws against same-sex marriage would violate this amendment. Also, I have presented many arguments on the applicability and necessity of equal protection/ due process marriage guarantees at a federal level in the first round. I extend these arguments. State sovereignty cannot override the 5th Amendment. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed when it ruled that California"s Proposition 8 against same-sex marriage contradicted provisions in the US Constitution. B. Loving v Virginia: As stated before, this case established marriage as a fundamental and federal liberty that cannot be deprived by any state. That the Supreme Court ruled the US Constitution trumped a Virginia (state) law against interracial marriage demonstrates marriage can fall into the Constitution"s domain and remains a federally protected right. 4. "Since my opponent's premise is" not [based] on explicit clauses"this resolution can, in no way, be true." A. False: I quoted both the 14th and 5th Amendments and stated their relevance to same-sex marriage. III. Concessions A. Equal Protection and Due Process: Con has conceded the applicability of the 14th and 5th Amendments to same-sex marriage, contesting, at most, the there exists some sort of "contradiction" in the Constitution. Pro has successfully defended against this claim and proven that relevant clauses demand a legal requirement. B. Loving v Virginia: Con concedes Loving v Virginia as precedent, which establishes marriage as a fundamental right, and its relevance to same-sex marriage. Vote Pro. http://www.heritage.org... Wikipedia