Gay marriage is not a civil right

It was good sport of him to forgive my absence in round 2 now I will continue with my case Resolution: Gay marrage is not a civil right OBSERVATION 1. The resolution does not state any country so thus it is the pro's duty to prove it isnt a civil right universally and it is the CON's duty to prove same sex marrage is a universal right OBSERVATION 2 The resolution was never really stated accept with in the name of this debate so i must also look toRound 1 since that is were me and my opponenet agreed on the rules OBSERVATION 3 According to Round 1 my opponent must prove how gay marrage is not a civil right also how it detrimits society. Now to my arguements. "Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U. S. 393 (1857), also known as the Dred Scott Decision, was a ruling by the U. S. Supreme Court that people of African descent brought into the United States and held as slaves (or their descendants, whether or not they were slaves) were not protected by the Constitution and were not U. S. citizens. Since passage of the 14th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, the decision has not been a precedent case, but retains historical significance. " . http://en.wikipedia.org... Above is an example of when the supreme court has been proven wrong. So thus even if they dictate a civil right and it may be law of the land, the still could, by moral standards be proven wrong. Contetnion1 Universal Declaration of human rights "(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. " . http://www.un.org... According to the Declaration of human rights a declaration sighned by all countries (Including the US) There is not limitation of marrage as long as the person is a man or a women. Thus if the world agrees (Most of it either way) That there is no overall ban on same sex marrage. Since the entire world did not ban same sex marrage according to Observation 1 it is possible tha somewhere same sex marrage is a civil right. "Since 2001, ten countries have begun allowing same-sex couples to marry nationwide: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden. " . http://en.wikipedia.org... Above are countries that belive same sex marrage is a civil right, so thus, in some place it is a civil right and the resolution is wrong. Contention 2. Seperation of church and state It is apprant that the united states holds christian values Example: Murphy v. Ramsey (1885) the U. S. Supreme Court stated: "in the holy state of matrimony;" Yes i may have cut a single peace out but it states "holy" Holy- Specified or set apart for a religious purpose. Free dictionary. com (also in my opponents he clearly states that the judicial system has a belief in ï¿½genisisï¿½ and they act apon the biblicaal book) Thus according to the defintion matrimony is a religious matter thus the government holds it own version of religion. Thomas Jefferson stated that there should be a seperation of church and state within the U. S. Thomas jefferson was a leading founder and wished a state diffrent from britain( Which held its own idea of religion) "Jefferson's metaphor . .. cited repeatedly by the U. S. Supreme Court. In Reynolds v. United States (1879) the Court wrote that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment. " In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state. " . http://en.wikipedia.org... Thus according to a supreme court justice and many cases freedom of church and state is part of the first ammendentment or a crucial part to our country IMPACT: Why this matters If the state views marrage as part of its religion then it is not seperating church and state. The united states constitution, the very thing supreme court justices are supposed to interpret, makes it unable for the state to enforce its religion on its people. Thus according to my esteemed opponent, the state is influencing its religion on the populus going against the foundation of the government and over stretching its powers when a state over streches its powers it uses its new found power to benefit its self at the dtriment of its citizens. this is all accomplished by the "morality " its is trying to preserve Contention 3 socialtal effects of homosexual unions premise: logic in the first round my opponent tries to stae that if gay marrage detriments society for two reasons A. governments duty to to influence morality and civilization. B. that not having 2 biologica leads to terribel conditions for a child. below are my counter arguements A. Adolf Hitler belived he wass supporting civilization by discriminating and creating laws against certain peoples. and we both know his actions were moral. also it is not the governments duty to advance morality and society (hey may have good intentions but often lead to disasturus affects) B. the study he presents does not account for homosexual couples it merely states that in generalnot having 2 authentic parents leads to bad conditions. it does not strictly mention homo sexuals and since itis not related to this subjectand no viable conjecture is made the evidence is useless. in the next round i will present my rebuttal