Gay marriages should be left alone.

Now, my opponent speaks of morality, how that it can't be like a law. For example, you can't determine one person's right from wrong, and the decisions they make. It is also very disrespectful of my opponent to question my argumentation choice, as nothing is prohibiting me from doing so. As long as my arguments explain against Gay marriages, they should be equally looked at for these rounds. Next, my opponent brings up a "Free society" where homosexuals can marry, and so can heterosexuals. However, what exactly can people do with "freedom" in a free society? Will there be anarchy? Will there be complete and total chaos? My personal belief is that no country can function without order. For example, Washington put down the Whiskey Rebellion with threats of force being used on the South, and the crazed Andrew Jackson established the "Force Bill", allowing Federal Laws to be enforced in the South. While possibly not the best latter example, it shows order is necessary, and Freedom must be limited, something my opponent never seems to bring up. The First Amendment covers the Freedom of speech and expression, however, no where does it cover what my opponent is saying. To elaborate, to the uneducated masss in a school, freedom of speech would include in it's association the use of cussing to express themselves. However, as well all know, that is not what the First Amendment allows. It lets us express our opinions in a manner that is legal. My opponent must realize that they are completely missinterpreting the text of the First Amendment, and gay marriage is not covered by any part of it. My opponent believes we should follow the constitution, which "apparently" states we can allow gay marriages. However, each state may have rights, and gay marriage being one of them. It is therefore not let alone, as multiple U. S. states outlawed gay marriage. My opponent, as wise as he seems, make a rather barbaric comment: 'If you believe in freedom, you cannot use the law to tell other people what to do. ' First of all, people who believe in freedom DO implement laws telling other people what to do. Presidents of the past did that; President Andrew Jackson did that, and so did George Washington. The Congress and the legislature do that as well. Second, there cannot be a nation without laws telling people what to do. I bring up the example of Force Bill, Laws directing actions of U. S. Court systems, Laws about Jury Selection, and laws telling the opponent at a certain age he must be released of duties at whatever job he has. To simply believe in freedom and no restrictions telling people what to do is simply a moronic way to discuss a place, especially a government running a country as big as our own. Lastly, my opponent talks about inequalize people, and about my side being on the wrong end of the Constitution and the American Way? First of, my opponent clearly was not well-educated in the United States History, otherwise, they would've known that the American Way was once the very thing they're against. The American Way was unconstitutional, and considered PRO-Slavery. Pro-Slavery inequalizes people as a law, and follows the American Way. My opponent is therefore being hypocritical, or would they be conceding that the American way IS inequalizing people? That is unclear. I therefore, continue to argue that Gay marriage shouldn't be left alone, and ought to be controlled by the government. Thank you.