Resolved: The US Constitution requires that same-sex couples be given the legal right to marry.

Before I start I have to comment: Pro has done a very good job in professionally allocating information into a long rhetoric for the institution of gay marriage as a legal requirement under the constitution. The formatting makes the text easy to read and the division of premises clear, concise. I applaud your efforts and hope you can continue to shine in the future. However, none of my contentions were effectively proven false as my opponent claims. I will begin by refuting several second round assertions."First, liberty, as the Court has historically perceived it, does not simply refer to bodily restraint, harm, or all things physical " it concerns an entire gamut of behaviors, beliefs, and interests, one of the most important being the freedom to marry"Since the Constitution is the basis of argument and source of all real evidence, I would kindly like my opponent to point out the area in the Constitution in which his definition of liberty is the Constitution's definition of liberty. Sarcasm aside, my opponent concedes the fact that it isn't the Constitution that defines liberty. The Court historically perceives a weather-worn definition. The court =/= The Constitution This case is irrelevant."With reference to the use of the equal protection clause in Brown v. Board of Education, Chief Justice Warren wrote in the Bolling decision that it would be "unthinkable that the same Constitution would impose a lesser duty on the Federal Government." Thus, equal protection under the law, even at a federal level, is written within the very intent of the Constitution and is guaranteed on some level by the 5th Amendment"The 5th Amendment, contrary to my opponent's statement, does not actually guarantee any level of equal protection. It is a clause that basically says, and here I will quote my textbook:'A person can be tried for a serious federal crime only if he or she has been indicted. . . No one may be subjected to double jeopardy."This is made with the intent to prevent abusive courts trialing a person at will for any and all infractions, not to effect equal protection under the law, as my opponent has claimed. Another irrelevant claim (this one is based on a false understanding of Constitutional text.)The statements about Judicial Review of laws; the stuff about strict scrutiny, etc. are irrelevant as they do not correlate with the resolution. Supreme Court Judges =/= THe Constitution. . . Judicial Review =/= Constitutional Requirement.It is apparent that my opponent's entire first round cleverly puts on a facade of supporting the resolution when it is, in fact, not doing anything of this sort. Round 3:1A. " By accepting an invitation for this debate, Con accepted the definition of "requires," which was explicitly stated to be "deems to be necessary."What else would "requires" mean? Of course I accepted this definition I gladly accepted this definition and argued the falsity of my opponent's refutation under it. I don't see how pointing out accepted parameters will aid my opponent in proving his resolution."This definition can in no way be taken to mean a sort of physical force"Yes it can. Ponder it. If you need help: read my round 2 example again."This definition denotes the legal sense as per the syntax of the resolution "requires granting same-sex couples the legal right to marry"I have already countered this. Although legal requirements are derived from the Constitution, the Constitution itself is a piece of paper and requires nothing. I stated quite clearly that it is the people who follow the constitution and enforce/create requirements. Let me take my example to the extreme to help you better understand this concept. Say we built a time machine and sent the Consitution back in time 10,000 years. What can it do then? What can it do now? There is no change. The only change is that the english-speaking human population who chose to abide by its clauses no longer exist. The people are the ones who create requirements, not the Constitution."C. Literature: Legal literature supports Pro"s choice of the word "requires" and demonstrates the Constitution can in fact "require": "In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution requires the states to provide defense attorneys to criminal defendants""After claiming the Constitution 'can in fact require', my opponent immediately follows this statement with the case of Gideon v.Wainwright, in which the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution to require states to provide defense attorneys to criminal defendants. This is exactly my point: The Supreme Court =/= the Constitution. This only serves to further my case and diminish my opponent's faulty resolution under my premise.2A also falls under this. Again, the Constitution requires no action. only those who follow the Constitution require actions. Suppose each and every US citizen, law enforcer, politician, etc. decided to practice anarchy.. what's the Constitution then but a scrap of paper? The point is that without the people to create requirements based on the Constitution, the Constitution in itself is impotent. 2B also falls to this supposition.2C says: "Con Implicitly Concedes Pro"s Interpretation of "Requires:""Some can argue.. [the Constitution], through its lawful institution, install[s] a certain set of requirements" " Now, "Installing a requirement" = "creating a requirement" and creating a requirement in the legal sense is the same as "requiring a requirement" to exist. The last phrase, of course, is redundant, so the proper verb is "requires," as the resolution dictates."My opponent is guilty of misinterpretation. I very clearly prefaced my statement with "Some can argue.." meaning this is not my position but the position of strawmen. I proceeded to knock these strawmen straight to the moon, so this 'implicit concession' does not exist. I concede IIA and IIB as the argument being refuted under these 2 sections are indeed irrelevant.IIC. Con has not submitted evidence for other, relevant contradictions. Slavery legal/illegal property rights vs. human rights vs. religious rights vs. state rights. If the Constitution did not have the capacity for contradictions, we would no longer need our Courts. 2A." As per my previous argument, the Constitution does guarantee protection from "unjustifiable discrimination" and affords equal protection/ due process at the state and federal level (this has been uncontested). "What does this have to do with constitutional requirement? Providing a guarantee is not the same as creating a requirement. I can guarantee a friend a dollar, but it doesn't require me to give it to him, nor does it require him to take it. "4. "Since my opponent's premise is" not [based] on explicit clauses"this resolution can, in no way, be true."A. False: I quoted both the 14th and 5th Amendments and stated their relevance to same-sex marriage."Meaning my opponent relates it based on his and court interpretation. People and their interpretations create the relevance, not the constitution. Limitation on gay marriage itself is open to categorization/interpretation as "unjustifiable discimination." The Constitution doesn't decide this, courts do. As I've stated before the Courts =/= the Constitution."III. ConcessionsA. Equal Protection and Due Process: Con has conceded the applicability of the 14th and 5th Amendments to same-sex marriage."False. I just contended against it (only could do so now due to debate parameters)"contesting, at most, the there exists some sort of "contradiction" in the Constitution""I'm pretty sure I had much more than: "There's a contradiction in the Constitution!!""B. Loving v Virginia: Con concedes Loving v Virginia as precedent, which establishes marriage as a fundamental right, and its relevance to same-sex marriage."AGAIN Court =/= ConstitutionMy premises have (aside from IIA&B) been either ignored (people create requirements) or inadequately refuted. The resolution is effectively disproved. Con wins.