It is up to the courts to define marriage, not legislators.

My opponants first argument is an analysis of the role of democracy protecting the rights of minorities, however, the key flaw in the argument is that it is grounded in theory not reality. The theory being that we only look out for the rights of minorities when their basic constitutional rights are assaulted, however, this doesn't assume that we consider their needs any other time. My opponent concedes this by stating "for all other cases it should be the majority that determines a democratic nation's course". This simply is not the case, in our society we look out for the minority even when basic constitutional rights aren't being violated. For example, schools that offer bilingual education (although my opponent will most likely point out that this is a state action and not a federal action, that doesn't mitigate the argument). We look out for the minority population in all instances. Second, my opponent claims to never intend to prove what majority will is, this is pretty crucial in this debate and is their burden. THe crux of my opponents arguments is that the court is meddling in the will of the people, yet he can't prove that without showing directly what is the will of the people. How can anyone say to any certainty that my opponent is right and the will of the people is being overruled when there is no definative example of what their will is? To not show this is to dodge the burden that is inherrent in my opponents argument. To address the last bit of my opponents argument, I believe what I meant through my statements was misunderstood. It is my assertion that the populous can't define marriage. The primary reason (and again drawing upon my opponents opening remarks) it is the PRIMARY DUTY of the judiciary to interpret laws, which includes definitions and clarity within legislation. Second, when I say "We obviously can't determine what the law should mean as a society," there are two key implications to note here. First, the lack of providing a clear outline of what the majority will is. I contend that we as a society are torn on the issue of marriage in our society and can't come to a cohesive opinion. My opponent has yet to provide any evidence to the contrary. With this being said my opponents argument, albeit on face is a good argument, simply can't hold water in today's debate. Second to this, my opponent frames his view of the judiciary in a very negative light, with really no justification. It is implicit in my opponents statement(s) that the judiciary 1. being appointed and not elected is bad. THis has no bearing on today's debate for two reasons. First, we are debating who should define marriage, not the merits of the method by which these bodies are created. Second, my opponent has offered no support to show that appointing judges is a bad thing. That is another debate for another time that I would GLADLY engage in, however, it has no bearing in today's debate.The second idea implicit in my opponents argument is that the judiciary on whole is bad. The only way that you might be able to grant this to my opponent is if my opponent showed what the will of the people is, but that was addressed above. Second, this really has no bearing on the debate. If my opponent wins this debate then one could make the argument that in this one action the judiciary is bad, however, to imply they are just flat out bad without any proof 1. isn't an argument and 2. a logical fallacy.