The United States federal government should legalize and recognize same sex marriage.

Jumping right into the thick of it. .. "This opinion was made forty years ago. " 37 years ago. "Forty years ago, prejudice was running high. " You should have proved it when you had the chance. This ruling was blatantly unconstitutional. The justices never ruled why the 14th Amendment did not apply. They simply said that gays do not count under equal protection, which has been proven untrue in Lawrence vs. Texas, Watkins v. Army, Lewis v. Harris, Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, California's Two Equal Marriage Cases and so many others. Baker v. Nelson did not actually look into equal protection. " Baker v Nelson made it very clear when they said that "in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex. " My opponent then goes on to explain what the Chief Justice on the CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT said about gay marriage and its constitutionality under the CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION. The California Supreme Court's rulings < US Supreme Court's rulings. It did not. The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled it 40 years ago when same sex prejudice was high. There is potential that you don't understand what it means to deny a case "for want of a substantial federal question. " When they deny a case to be heard for that reason, it means they completely agree with the lower court's ruling, which actually makes that ruling common law. "Today, every time the Supreme Court looks into equal protection of gays, they find that they deserve. Every recent case shows that gays deserve equal protection and equal marriage. " My opponent is confusing equal protection in areas such as the workplace, where sexual orientation doesn't make a difference, with sexual orientation of married people, which does make a fundamental difference. "The Supreme Court forced interracial marriage, integration of schools, voting rights and much more. They can legalize things. .. " I repeat, the supreme court can only make things illegal, they cannot legalize things. Proof ? Many states allowed interracial marriage before Loving v. Virginia. When they ruled, they made it so it would be illegal to make illegal interracial marriage. ">> The Minnesota government ruled same sex marriage illegal and the Supreme Court did not want to touch it 40 years ago. " Half false. The Supreme Court did touch it, they said that the decision was proper and is to be used as federal legal precedent. "Every time same sex marriage is tried today, it wins. Gays have equal protection as so many cases have proved recently. " Not true, in my state of Maryland, just last year, the Court of Special Appeals (Highest in the state) ruled that Gay marriage was not legal at this point in time in Maryland. Pretty much the same question fell before the California and Massachusettes supreme court, only they took the other way. It pretty much comes down to if the justices believe judicial activism is a good thing. I think that in this case, its not. "Everytime the Supreme Court rules it is due to a state violating the Constitution. " That's just a factual error, in many cases the Supreme court hears, both sides are private parties. It never has. When the supreme Court ruled that the descison made by the Minnesota supreme court in Baker v. Nelson was correct, they allowed for state bans on gay marriage, because it was ruled that they don't violate the 14th amendment. "The right of the Supreme Court to rule things is in the Constitution. " Judicial review, (which my opponent is referring to) is no where stated to be a right of the Supreme Court in the Constitution. However, it is legal precedent to use judicial review, since Marbury v. Madison. I'm ignoring the next little part, its really not a contentious issue, just some words that have no relevance to the debate for either side at this point. "And in modern times, Courts have been ruling in favor of same sex couples, because they do deserve equal protection. " The Supreme Court has not yet made a ruling in favor of same sex couples, If you had found one when you had the chance, then I guess I wouldn't be saying this. "This has recently been countered by the California Supreme Court and other cases. " The California Supreme Court has no power over the 49 other states in the country. Its descisons, unless ruled proper by the US Supreme Court, have no bearing for the rest of the nation. "At the time when interracial marriage was legalized, only 90% of Americans supported the legalization of it. " Yes, that's a compelling argument to support legalizing it. In this instance, 38% support legalizing same sex marriage, and 49% oppose. "The Supreme Court and the United States Constitution overrules what the American people currently want. And it should. " Again, the Supreme Court never ruled that gay marriage bans were unconstitutional, and since the Supreme Court is the final say on interpreting the Constitution, the Constitution currently allows for gay marriage to be banned. "There is no logical reason for the Supreme Court not to overrule this blatant unconstitutionality. " Other than the fact that 49% of respondents oppose it, while only 38% support it, and it would overturn 96% of all state legislatures. Those are two logical reasons. Its call judicial restraint, which is the idea that judicial review, which over turns laws, should be limited to cases where it is obvious that there is a need for it. In this case, it is not obvious that there is a need for it. "But 100% of our founding fathers supported the Constitution. " By Constitution, you mean Judicial Review, which was never in the Constitution. I wish you could prove that 100% of our founding fathers supported judicial review. I can prove that at least two of them didn't. Robert Yates, of the New York Delegation to the Constitutional Convention: "[I]n their decisions they will not confine themselves to any fixed or established rules, but will determine, according to what appears to them, the reason and spirit of the constitution. The opinions of the supreme court, whatever they may be, will have the force of law; because there is no power provided in the constitution, that can correct their errors, or controul their adjudications. From this court there is no appeal. " Thomas Jefferson, writer of Declaration of Independence "You seem . .. to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. .. . Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves" Both of the previous quotes are ones that explain how the writers take issue with the idea of 9 lawyers deciding the laws for the entire country, and how the vast majority of the time, it should not happen. To conclude, I would just like to remind everyone that I have proven that legal precedent allows for states to ban gay marriage, and I have also shown that the issue of gay marriage cannot and should not be solved on the federal level, the states being much more apt to solve the issue, as for doing it that way will result in a positive outcome for all involved parties, The Constitution, the States, the couples, the nation.