The State (the goverment) has no compellig reason to legalize SSM.

Yes I will agree that we should look at the validity and the soundness of the logic used more then the places we find our sources. I will now point out in both my defense and rebuttels how my opponent's arguements are nothing when compared to mine, and that how I am ultimately right. D1: It's ConstitutionalMy opponent begins his refutation with a claim that my interracial marriage bans were no equal to the SSM bans. However, he did not get the point of this contention, in the 50's the bans on interracial marriages were considered 'unnatural', now inspite of what our Constitution and the Declaration of Independece said about issues such as these he wishes to continue his ignorant arguments based on the lie that the people serve the government, when it is the exact opposite. In the Declaration of Independence it says : 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. â€" That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed'This basically says that the duty of the government and all governments is to protect the rights and liberties of it's people. So I would like to ask my opponent this simple question: How are people supposed to pursue happiness if they can't even marry the person they love, and how is banning SSM protecting the liberties and fundemental rights of the people? The answer is quite clear: THEY CAN'T and NO IT ISN'T! The most important reason for the government's very existence is so that it may do the job of protecting it's people's rights and liberties. This is the reason why they should legalize SSM. It is not the government's duty to protect society, it is there duty to protect society's rights! Next I will like to drop my case for the 5th ammendment, and replace it with another proof that SSM bans are unconstitutional. They violate the 14th Admenment. The admendment goes as follows: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. According to Articla 1 if a State decides to go into the benefit-granting business it has to distribute those benefits in a way that respects constitutional mandates of equal protection and guarantees of substantive rights. In the case of same-sex marriage, the argument is that none of the asserted state interests justify giving same-sex couples and their children fewer benefits and protections than are provided to opposite-sex couples. And my last point in the defense of my first contention is that I will like to go over what the government is actually for and what it's job is. My opponent again and again says that the state has a interest in marriage souly on a procreative bases, however our constitution and the princibles of our nation and it's government will tell otherwise. Though I have mention this in my contentions I will affirm it again. That our government's job is too defend the rights of the people. Since, marriage is a fundemental right and people marry only because they are in love (not because the government tells them too! ) the government has a very big reason to legalize SSM: BECAUSE THAT IS JOB OF OUR GOVERNMENT! D2: Would help the goverment economicallyMy opponent then tries to refute my second contention by stating that it would hurth the economy by increasing governmnet spending on benefits that are given to the couple that get married. He even brings up a case that was brung up by a NY lawmaker that was brought up before the legalization of SSM was actually declared in NY. Actually in NY it is quite different. At the rate in which profits from weddings, tourism, jobs, and liscence fees are going up. It is estimated that an extra billion dollars a year will be made for the next few years. Which is quite a lot of money for a very key state in our union's economy. Massachussettes has also received and extra 37 million dollars a year since it legalize SSM[4]. These are just two of the proofs that the economic benefit that the state could get from legalizing SSM is great. If one takes a look carefully if SSM is legalized in all fifty states then the government could receive billions of dollars that could very well help out our economy. The Pros outway the Potential cons. This is a great reason why the Federal and State governments should legalize SSM. R1: What marriage is to the goverment, why it is this way, and how it relates to SSM:I will now start my refutation my opponent's claim. My opponent says: Firstly, the institution of marriage is one about procreation and child rearing. Marriages goal is to create an climate for the continuation for society, aka procreation. This is why the state gives benefits to heterosexual couples over homosexual ones. Homosexual couples will never be able to create or have a relationship type relating to procreation. Procreation and child rearing are essential to making society move on, and if one of those is missing there is a problem. Only can a man and a woman create children, and or have a procreative type relationship. Obviously my opponent is ignorant to the fact that a couple does not need to be married to have children, and the very institution of marriage is becoming obsolete with 50% of all marriages in the U. S. ending in devorce and many people choosing not to get married, Also, my opponent's definition of marriage is quite unconstitutional. It violates the constitution's 14th admentment's Article 1 (which is deplayed up above). This includes the due process clause The essence of the due process clause is surmised well in the following excerpt, "Due process alternatively due process of law or the process that is due, is the principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law. Due process holds the government subservient to the law of the land, protecting individual persons from the state. " Given this understanding the illegality of gay marriage would be unconstitutional because it denies a certain group of people their legal right to marry. People have the right to life, liberty, and property under the due process clause and one does not have liberty if one is not allowed to marry the person of their choice. Therefore, it is clear that SSM bans are unconstitutional. Since, I have already proven that the soul reason for even having our governmnet in the first place is to protect the rights and liberties of the individuals under the the banner of our great country. The government is not only to support the Constitution, but the Constitution governs the government itself. This reason is the biggest reason why the government should legalize SSM. (Continued in Comments at opponets permission) (Sorry ) :(