Homosexual Marriage Should be legal in all US states and territories

Rebuttals: Pro says “I agree only vital documents, federally issued certified documents, and driver’s licenses. ” Again, Under current law the Federal Government must recognize valid same sex-marriages however, the States do not. Pro’s resolve is not that the Federal government needs to recognize the marriage, it is the States and territories. Of course any federally issued certified documents have to be recognized by the Federal government. We are not debating Federal, rather we have been debating State laws. In response to my statement “Are there laws that prevent marriage? No! " Pro says, “Yes there are and it is the current debate topic. It is not recognized by the state then technically it is not a marriage. Your examples are for common law marriages that are not recognized under the bans. ” I am not referring to common law marriages… I am referring to the religious rite of marriage. There is no law that prevents people from marrying within their religion, and living with whomever they desire. I mentioned that I do not care if the government recognizes my marriage. Pro responds with… “You might really care. If the state does not recognize the marriage you lose the following things: The right to make health care decisions for your wife in an emergency. The right to leave you property to you wife if die and you don’t have a will. The right to have parents rights over your children automatically at birth and would have to take her to court to gain them. The right to be informed if your wife was in an accident. The right to make funeral arrangements for you wife if she passed. ” Again, I would be upset if the State did not allow me to exercise these rights. However, there is no inherent tie of these rights to the religious concept of marriage. As I mentioned I do think these so called “rights” should be available to all consenting adults regardless of how the relationship is defined. Pro’s argument fails to show that such rights could not be made available without the state recognizing a traditionally religious rite known as marriage. These rights could be and should be separated from the religious institution of marriage. As such it is not a necessity that marriages be recognized state to state for such rights be respected. Closing Statement: Thanks to pro for this debate. This is a touchy subject, as I mentioned this is kinda a devil’s advocate debate for me. It has been very challenging. Though, I do feel as though my case stands at the end of this debate. State by State majorities can decide what should or should not be legal. As marriage is not recognized as an unalienable right, this is reasonable. Also, as each State has different requirements as to what qualifies one for a marriage license it is reasonable to allow each State the ability to determine the criteria to be met. Including defining marriage as between a man and a women if that is the case. Therefore if a majority in any given state, like Utah, deems same-sex marriage illegal. That should be respected. Marriage is a religious rite that the government has used for convenience, not necessity. There is no reason the rights my opponent has mentioned could not be respect without reference to a religious rite. Due to the religious nature of marriage, as well as States rights, U. S. States and territories should respect our nations democratic process and allow the power of the people to define what constitutes marriage in their respective states. If a people in a given state, like Utah, deem same sex marriage illegal, then in the State of Utah same sex marriage should be illegal.