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

Now that its been settled that we're talking mostly about the constitutionality of a federally enforced legalization and recognition of s.s.m. I think this debate will really become interesting. My opponent's argument pretty much comes down to this :"This is true that marriage is a state's rights issue.Congress does not have the power to force states to allow same sex marriage. However, the Supreme Court does." To start, My rebuttal is that just because the Supreme Court does have the power of judicial review doesn't mean that it should always be exercised, especially in a case such as this. Also, as previously ruled in Baker v. Nelson (1971), the 14th amendment applies in some instances regarding marriages, but not others. The majority opinion in that case is quoted as follows "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." The above cited case occurred in the Minnesota State Supreme Court. The couple that was denied the ability to marry appealed to the US Supreme Court, and the Court refused to hear the case, "for want of a substantial federal question." This is unlike most denials, as in this situation, the refusal to hear the case codifies the decision that the Minnesota Supreme Court has made as the one that all lower courts must make. So basically, it has been ruled on by the Supreme Court, and same sex marriage bans do not violate the 14th amendment. Onto the previously contended issues before I state my points. "If the Supreme Court of the United States forces all states to finally recognize same sex marriages, this will be an action taken by the federal government through the federal Supreme Court." The Supreme Court can't alter the law via an affirmative. They can only do it in a negative. So basically they can possibly make it illegal to ban same sex marriage, but they technically can't make same sex marriage legal. As stated before, the Supreme Court ruled in essence that states are not in violation of the 14th amendment if they ban same sex marriage. Your other point is moot now, as it is established that we are not talking about Congressional legalization of marriage. "However, you cannot just throw away basic American concepts. They have no legal value, but certainly have value. If we were only to follow law and abandon all American principles, our nation would be far less great." This isn't really a big issue in this debate, but still, the law is the law, inspirational quotes are inspirational quotes. To intermix the two at will would be a bad idea. "States have this power and yours, Maryland, uses it, but many states do not. Under the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution they have to follow this rule. It is not optional. State's rights only apply when not in violation of the Constitution as the 10th Amendment reads." Back to Baker v. Nelson. Although my state has more to offer for gay couples, it did this by democratic legislative choice. Not by Constitutional force. Also, states rights are granted in the constitution, so to deny them would be just as unconstitutional as to deny the Congress the power to make and declare war. "We could clear up this debate of these last agreed upon points if you would concede." CONCEDE?! NEVER. "I was referring to the Supreme Court, which does have the right to regulate marriage if the current rule is unconstitutional." Yes it does, although its been ruled that bans on gay marriage are Constitutional. "The Constitution supercedes all law, including state's rights." States rights are part of the Constitution, so you're saying that the Constitution supersedes itself. "It clearly says, "the powers not delegated by the United States Constitution."" No, it says 'The powers not delegated to the United State BY THE CONSTITUTION." Its not up for debate, that's what the document says. Onto what I have to say. It is my belief that the United States federal government should not legalize and recognize same sex marriage. I do not believe that Congress should do it, as that would blatantly violate the Constitution, and I also believe that the Supreme Court should not do it. The Supreme Court should abstain from ruling that the 14th amendment is violated by states if they have a ban on Same sex marriage because this would overturn previously set precedent by the Court and because it is a proper argument 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". I also argue that it would be inappropriate for the Supreme Court to use judicial review because this would be the greatest usurpation of state sovereignty by 9 lawyers the world has ever seen, (48 states currently find the marriage of same sex couples illegal.) and would go directly against the majority opinion of people in the United States. (Pew Poll, end of may, 49% opposed to marriage, 38% favor. Most recent example) This issue can be solved at the state level, that has been my argument the whole time. The Supreme Court's presence should not alter that fact. To end, I will quote Abraham Lincoln as he speaks regarding his opposition to Judicial review, which is the concept that my opponent is encouraging the Supreme Court to implement, making the banning of gay marriages at the state level illegal. "[T]he candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."