Gay marriage should be legal in the United States

"My opponent makes the claim here that something can be neither legal and illegal, but he fails to provide evidence or reasoning for this claim." Opposite to what my opponent has said, right before this quote I provided evidence from my opponent's argument concerning the tenth amendment. I shall expand upon the reasoning involved. What I have said is that the federal government cannot make laws either way concerning gay marriage. It is up to the states. "I claim that something is legal until it is made illegal." Let's look at a few examples to examine when something is legal. 1. An employer can pay their employees whatever they want until a minimum wage law is passed. Thus, in this case, it is legal to pay whatever until a law is passed, then it is illegal. 2. There are no laws concerning marriage whatsoever. Marriage was defined as a legal union. Because there are no laws pertaining to marriage in this situation. Legal marriage does not exist. Anyone can have a religious ceremony and live with whomever they wish, but this legal union does not exist because there are no laws. As can be seen in these two examples, something is not always legal until it is made illegal. In the second example, marriage as a legal union simply did not exist. An action can be considered legal until it is legislated otherwise, but something provided by the government, (in this case a marriage by law), does not exist until it is brought into existence by law. Civil rightsCivil rights- The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship [1]. Marriage- The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife, and in some jurisdictions, between two persons of the same sex, usually entailing legal obligations of each person to the other"Under this definition [of marriage], gay marriage certainly could be considered a civil right, just as marriage already is, under certain jurisdictions. As long as gay marriage is included in the definition of marriage, it is a civil right."Gay marriage can only be considered a civil right in some jurisdictions. This is because as noted in the definition, gay marriage is only a part of the definition of marriage in some jurisdictions. Because civil rights are rights that are gained by being a citizen or resident of a certain jurisdiction, gay marriage is only a civil right in those jurisdictions that recognize the definition of marriage as gay marriage or straight marriage. In jurisdictions that define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, gay marriage is not a right that belongs to people who are under that jurisdiction."The United States does have the obligation or duty to enforce its laws; this does not mean that the states have the obligation to define marriage as only between a man or a woman. "The United States does have an obligation to enforce its laws. One of these laws is the tenth amendment which gives the states, not the federal government, the power to legislate marriage. My opponent's argument that the federal government is obligated to legislate marriage is an argument for the government to break the law. My opponent also highlighted the difference between "should" and "can." Of course Congress can pass any law it wants to, however it should pass all laws. The reason it should not pass a law legalizing same sex marriage is that such a law is unconstitutional. Whether gay marriage should be included in the definition of marriageMy opponent is correct in assessing my argument. My argument's main points are that states may define marriage as they wish and that the federal government cannot constitutionally regulate marriage.As his final argument of the previous round, my opponent chose to argue why each state should include gay marriage in the definition of marriage. Unfortunately, this argument is not applicable to the resolution. The resolution, interpreted using the agreed upon definitions, states that the federal government should legislate to make gay marriage legal. The choices states make concerning the definition of marriage is not a part of the resolution. The important part is that states are allowed to make that choice.Thus, my opponent is arguing for an unconstitutional action and the specific actions the state's choose regarding the definition of marriage are not topical to the resolution.Question Although I believe I have sufficiently proved the non topicality of the previous argument, I anticipated such an argument in the previous round, and thus posed the question "If gay marriage is a civil right, then is polygamy a civil right?" My opponent chose not to answer the question because he felt it was not topical to the resolution. This question is absolutely relevant to the resolution. This is because if we are exploring redefining marriage, we must look at the possible precedents that it could set. Polygamy, as a comment on this debate pointed out, could become part of the definition of marriage because of the precedent set. I suspect the real reason for his response is that he simply did not wish to answer the question. Why might he choose this response? Let's say he chose to affirm the question and say that yes, if gay marriage can be a civil right, then polygamy too can be a civil right. In that case, he would have to defend polygamy because I could use a moral argument to show why polygamy was wrong and if gay marriage led to polygamy, this would be a morally wrong procedure. If he chose to negate the question, then he would have to prove that gay marriage would not be setting a precedent for polygamous marriage. This is also a challenging argument to make. I am not saying this is the reason he chose not to answer the question, but it certainly appears that way. I myself feel no reason to push for voters to vote one way or the other on conduct because I feel my argument are strong enough to win by themselves. I will, however, remind readers that my opponent has chosen to not respond to a question which I have shown to be directly related to the issue at hand.Summary1. I proved that legal marriage does not exist until brought into existence by law2. I proved that marriage is not a civil right throughout the United States, because only some jurisdictions recognize marriage as both homo and heterosexual.3. I proved that my opponent is advocating for an unconstitutional action.4. I proved that how states choose to define marriage is not important to the resolution.5. I proved that my unanswered question is relevant to the resolution, so it is my opponent, not I, who am drawing away from the resolution.Source:[1]- http://www.thefreedictionary.com...