Gay marriage should be legal

I see my opponent has forfeited her argument round. Whatever the reason, I shall still post my opening arguments. I had one thing in particular I wanted to point out, but it may be a rebuttal than an actual argument. I wrestled with whether it was a rebuttal or an argument, so I will just wait til round three. Nevertheless here we go First I am going to clarify my position on this topic. I am against both a federal and state laws allowing gay marriage, however I am also against both federal and state laws BANNING gay marriage as well. I would just as soon have the government stay out of it. Leave it up to the people conducting the marriage, be it judges, pastors, priests, rabbis, etc. 1. Marriage Itself is Not a Civil Right Many proponents of gay marriage claim it is a civil right. But what is a civil right? A civil right is defined as, "right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship including especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments and subsequent acts of Congress". I got this from Google. Now, let's take a look at the 13th and 14th amendments. I am only including these two as "subsequent acts of Congress" is not defined, but this shall still drive my point home. 13th amendment: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. [1] Even the staunchest of gay marriage proponents cannot argue that not making gay marriage legal would cause slavery or involuntary servitude, therefore we need not discuss this amendment any further However, the 14th amendment may prove to be a little tricky 14th amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.[2] There are five sections of this amendment, but it is only the first one we need to pay attention to. Let's look at this carefully, shall we? "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" This is the part where people argue that laws should be made allowing gay marriage. I can see how a very weak argument could be made, but that argument would be dead in the water. The only case this could have an argument against is BANNING gay marriage. Nowhere does it elude to gay marriage being a civil right and therefore, laws should be made backing it. The next part we need to look at is "nor shall any state deprive any person of life liberty or property" Let's define each of those shall we? Life- he condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death. Liberty- quality individuals have to control their own actions [3] Property- something that is owned by a person, business, etc. [4] We could easily and safely assume that the right to life would not be infringed upon by not making pro gay marriage laws. Likewise we could easily and safely assume liberties would not be infringed upon by not making pro gay marriage laws, as well as the right to property would not be infringed upon by not making pro gay marriage laws. However, making pro gay marriage laws WOULD infringe upon another man's liberties. Think of the pastors and other church leaders who do not wish to preside over said marriages. By using the definition of liberty, we can say that if gay marriage laws were passed, allowing gay couples to get married, church leaders' liberties would be denied as they would be forced to preside over gay marriages against their will. This would also fall under denying those same church leaders their 13th amendment rights. I could even go as far as to say that not marrying, in any form would not infringe upon these rights, 1. http://www.law.cornell.edu... 2. http://www.law.cornell.edu... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://www.merriam-webster.com...