People should be allowed to marry people of the same sex.

Thanks Pro! I'll be taking each of your statements as you addressed them.My opponent states that keeping homosexual marriage illegal is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (because it prefers religion), but I beg to differ. Keeping gay marriage illegal is not preferring either group, but rather keeping them separate for the sake of both. I took the liberty to read the provided link and realized that it actually strengthens my argument. This is a quote from Thomas Jefferson on the subject. It can be found in the link that Pro provides-"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."Look at the term he uses at the end: "building a wall." This implies that the State should never be involved with the affairs of the church. The intent of the Establishment Clause was meant to give the church control over marriage, baptism, etc.My opponent also says that marriage is not religious. It has been established that matrimony is one of the sacraments of the Catholic Church, therefore it is religious. All of the above knowledge will be used for the first point.P1. The Establishment Clause 1. The purpose of the Establishment Clause is to keep elements of the church and state separate. 2. Marriage originated as and has always been a religious institution, therefore it pertains to the church. Conclusion: The state has no business interfering with marriage. The illegality of gay marriage was not a show of preference, but an act of separating church and state. "My opponent says that, if we allow same-sex couples to be in civil unions, then they will get the same tax benefits as opposite-sex couples, so same-sex couples will have no reason to complain. I don't deny that same-sex couples will get the same tax benefits as opposite-sex couples with civil unions. However, some couples may also like the government to recognize that they are married, not just give them tax benefits."My question to my opponent is this: why, if all of the financial benefits are the same, would the name of your union be important? "Marriage" simply has a religious connotation. The above information will be used for the second point.P2. "What difference does it make"1. Marriage and civil unions give the same financial and medical benefits.2. The only difference between the two is religious connotation.3. Under the Establishment Clause, the state can not meddle with the church's affairs. Conclusion: It shouldn't matter to an atheistic homosexual couple what the religious connotation of their marriage is. It is preferable to keep the finances equal, but the services separate.My opponent seems to be hung up on the assumption that marriage is not religious, but I have addressed that already. "My opponent says that it is unfair that Christian bakers aren't always allowed not to cater a gay wedding but black bakers are allowed not to make KKK cakes, gay bakers are allowed not to make Westboro Baptist Church cakes, and Muslim bakers are allowed not to cater gay weddings. I agree. I think that either everything should be allowed, or nothing should be allowed. However, just because some Christians are treated unfairly (and I don't think that they should be treated unfairly) doesn't mean that same-sex marriage is bad. Just because some people do bad things in the name of their beliefs (e.g. treating Christians unfairly against other people because of their views on same-sex marriage) doesn't mean that their beliefs are wrong."Because same-sex marriage is now legal, all of the cases in R2 exist. Each of those businesses were refraining to do something that violated their conscience and they were penalized for it. We have to look at the root problem here, though. I'm sure any of these people would be just fine with making a "civil union cake," but now that gay marriage is legal, Christians can no longer follow their beliefs without being prosecuted.P3. Conclusion1. Marriage is a religious institution.2. The state has no business interfering with marriage. The illegality of gay marriage was not a show of preference, but an act of separating church and state.3. It shouldn't matter to an atheistic homosexual couple what the religious connotation of their marriage is. Therefore, it is preferable to keep the finances equal, but the services separate.Conclusion: There is no good reason not to separate marriage and civil unions, so why infringe on the religious right? Does the word "marriage" just sound cool? Clearly, most people don't even know what it is...Pro has yet to show why making gay marriage legal is better than separating marriage from civil unions.I await Pro's argument :)