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

I am a Beginner and I hope to do well in this. (Don't lump expectations on me, I'm very unconfident D:)Oh, and.. Hi to you too. :)Introduction: In this first round, I seek to establish several cases which will serve as foundations for the case against Constitutional requirement of gay marriage. Laws effecting prohibitions against gay marriage are not unconstitutional.I. Freedom of speech, press, religion, etc.The first amendment of the US Constitution says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free practice thereof.This means that religious practitioners are allowed to excercise their religious freedoms without the interference of the government. It also means, when applied to this case, that gay marriage cannot be imposed and may be performed by the pastor of any religious society according to the rules of the religious society.Here is a distinct contracdiction within the Constitution: Amendment one also allows for those within the gay community to practice religion and, subsequently, have marriage as a legal right. This contradiction says two things: 1.The US Constitution was drafted with many things in mind, but homosexual marriage union is not one of them. 2. This is, in fact, left to the devices of the states. This is perfectly Constitutional since the Constitution institutes a federalist system. The tenth amendment says: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it [,meaning the constitution,] to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.3. Since the Constitution neither limits nor ordains the legal marriage of gays, my opponent's premise, that the US Constitution requires the legal right of marriage to be given to the gay community, is false. Whether or not Homosexual marriage is legal is ascribed to the discretion of individual states.There are also clauses in the Constitution that act contradictorily in favor of and against state power. In fact, the Constitution is full of contradictions. Although it is the supreme law of the land, it is open to interpretation and does not, in itself, require anything beyond it's very explicit laws/statements. Since my opponent's premise is based entirely on interpretation and judicial cases and not on explicit clauses directly related to the case in question, this resolution can, in no way, be true.One can argue from the stance slavery and say that slavery, while widely institutionalized within the nation, is ruled to be unconstitutional under the same context as homosexual marriage, but, once again, this is based solely on interpretation. Before the 13th Amendment, the judicial reviews that invalidate this institution also base their invalidation under constitutional interpretation. The Consitution did not ever require slavery be practiced or abolished before the 13th amendment. II. SemanticsSince semantics were not prohibited, here goes:I, as a physical human being, can force requirements on others by physically creating an actual or potential physical barrier that requires circumvention. The Constitution, as a piece of paper, cannot, in any way, require anyone to do anything. Some can argue that it does, through its lawful institution, install a certain set of requirements, but those who actually create the physical requirement are those who wish to do so. The law requires nothing. It is the people who follow the law of their own free will that require others to also follow the law and their interpretation of it. Interpretation =/= requirement by the Constitution(Go semantics!)I will admit, the Consitution has many provisions that can be interpreted to imply gay marriage a legal right, but this is not the same as the US Constitution actually requiring gay marriage.I am sorry of my round isn't as long/fulfilling as yours, but I don't see how I can create further disputation without having it seem insignificant in light of my other contentions or seeming redundant. *The Constitution's clauses and articles are published through many, many mediums. I am unable to select any particular one to source and will, therefore, shirk the sourcing and hope it will work out when it comes to voting (please don't kill me D:)