Gay Marriage should be legalized in the US

The issue at hand is, as I construe from your argument, is not primarily a debate about whether same-sex marriage is a good or a bad thing since my opponent has not offered any arguments what so ever to account for that. Rather it is a debate about whether we should gay marriage into legislation on a federal level instead of leaving it to the individual states to handle it. Since my opponent is citing a survey that asked people if they were in favour of legalizing same-sex marriage on a federal level, I take it this is where our disagreement lies and what our debate will be about (If you want to expand the debate for the next round you are free to do so). I would argue that same-sex marriage should be regulated on a state-level on the basis of the United States constitution (not being an American myself, I do admire your adherence to the constitution). First and foremost, the US constitution was formed around a system of federalism granting the national government several different kinds of powers as well as prohibiting it from taking decisions on issues that are of local concern, thus granting the states autonomy to create their own individual laws and form their own public policy as opposed to the federal government which was granted the overarching role of governing issues that affect the entire economy. While it is the federal government"s role to declare war " if needed " police power, on the other hand, is an area that is the sole province for the states. Indeed, nowhere in the US. Constitution will you find any reference to gay marriage whatsoever. What you"ll find, however, are references in the constitution that clearly speaks against an overly meddling federal government. For instance, the 10th amendment reads as follows: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In fact, during drafting of the US. Constitution the states all had marriage laws that differed from one another. The disparities existed then as it does now. Clearly, the founders had no desire to meddle in such matters. They certainly wouldn"t want the federal government to impose their definition of marriage on the states. In fact, some people might even go as far as to argue that allowing federal judges to rewrite the definition of marriage can result in a victory for those lobbying for same-sex marriage. The founding fathers, however, sought to protect liberty and the best guarantor of true liberty is decentralized political institutions, while the greatest threat to liberty is concentrated power. This is why the founding fathers sought out to limit the power of the federal government over the states. Allowing federal judges unfettered discretion to strike down state laws, or force a state to conform to the laws of another state, leads to centralization and loss of liberty. If we are to follow the Constitution it basically gives us two choices: either allow the states to deal with marriage or leave it to the people, individuals, churches, families, and communities. Either one would be consistent with what the Constitution says. http://www.history.org...