Gay And lesbian Marriage is right.

== My case == Contention 1: Marriage is a fundamental right and a ban is unconstitutional Since 1888, the U.S. Supreme Court has declared more than 14 times that marriage is a fundamental right. In these cases, the Court affirmed that marriage “is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause,” and is “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” and “sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.” For example, in Lawrence vs. Texas, the Supreme Court ruled “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.” [1] In the recent 2015 case Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized gay marriage in all 50 states, the Supreme Court once again affirmed such a right. The Court declared that “The right of same-sex couples to marry is also derived from the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause are connected in a profound way. Rights implicit in liberty and rights secured by equal protection may rest on different precepts and are not always co- extensive, yet each may be instructive as to the meaning and reach of the other” [2] Similarly, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: (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. (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. [3] Contention 2: Civil unions are not enough Among the alternatives that has been proposed is civil unions or domestic partnerships. However, this is an attempt to create a “separate but equal” solution to the issue. It has been noted that over 1,138 benefits are still denied to those who are only in a civil union including the ability to petition for spouse to immigrate to the U.S. and family reunification for asylum seekers. [4] Further, as we know, separate but equal is not equal. == Con’s case == Con’s case is a disorganized mess that is very difficult to read. If I misunderstand your arguments, I do apologize. Please try to use better formatting and try to use proper English. His entire argument boils down to the inability of same-sex couples to procreate. However, this would mean that those who are infertile or otherwise could not have children would not be allowed to enjoy the fundamental right of marriage. Secondly, same-sex couples can have children via adoption and artificial insemination. Over 74 studies on children with same-sex parents concluded that they fare no worse than children of traditional parents. [5] [6] I herby affirm the resolution that same-sex marriage is indeed a fundamental right. Sourcs1. http://afer.org...2. http://www.supremecourt.gov...3. http://www.un.org...4. http://www.thetaskforce.org...5. http://whatweknow.law.columbia.edu...6. http://www.slate.com...