Same-sex marriage (USA ONLY)

I would like to summarize my argument before proceeding. I will then summarize my opponent's rebuttal, and then proceed further. Negative Argument SummaryMy opponent claims that homosexual marriage is a fundamental right, because marriage is a fundamental right. He argues that homosexuals do not have the fundamental right to marry, and therefore we live in an unjust system that needs to be changed. However, this is not an accurate reflection of reality. In reality, every American in good legal standing has the same rights. They have the right to form a legal union with a willing member of the opposite gender. What my opponent is arguing is that homosexuals do not have equal rights because they cannot marry someone of the same gender. However, this is an additional right that my opponent is advocating. His burden of proof therefore is to show beyond a reasonable doubt that this additional right is not only permissible, but is necessary to preserve justice. If he fails to show reasonable proof for this assertion, he loses the debate. Plain and simple. Affirmative Argument SummaryC1) My opponent argues that since interracial marriages were once outside of the boundary of the definition of marriage, and has since been changed, that we must view homosexual marriage in a similar light. C2) DOMA (the Bill that created the definition of marriage) is unconstitutional and therefore should be repealed. RebuttalsRC1) My opponent has failed to provide any sources that verifiy his claim that interracial marriages were once illegal. Unil he does, this point stands on an unproven assertion and cannot be considered. Furthermore, my opponent also fails to show why comparing interracial marriages to homosexual marriages is a valid comparison. This point cannot be considered forceful since it rests on two unproven assertions, and until these assertions are proven this conention should be dismissed as two instances of begging the question. RC2) I shall divide this into sub points to address each point of my opponent's contention. RC2.1) My opponent claims that Congress does noe the right to strop people of rights when they travel through the country. However, this rests on the assumption that congress is taking away a right that people inherantly have. He is presupposing that homosexual marriage is a right, and therefore this point can be discarded (begging the question). RC2.2) There are other laws that make america a "house divided" that my opponent is not taking issue with. Age of concent in Minnesota is 16, while in other states it may be 17 or 18. In some states a person cannot view pornography until they are 21, while in others it is 18. Furthermore, my opponent masks his argument in a pseudo-defense of State's Rights, however if the State has the right to prohibit or allow homosexual marriage, then the "House Divided" issue MUST remain, otherwise all states would have to have uniform rights and therefore would not have individual rights. My opponent's argument is self defeating. RC2.3) My opponent again begs the question. In order for homosexuals to be considered 2nd class citizens they would have to be prohibited a right that others are allowed. In this case my opponent claims that the right to marry someone of the same gender is being witheld from homosexuals. However this has not been shown to be a valid right, nor has it been shown to be equal to the right to marry someone of the opposite gender. As such, all persons have the same rights, so there is no second class citizen being created. RC2.4) How is it Congress's responibility to ensure that Minnesota respects Wisconsin's laws? How does DOMA have anything to do with this? DOMA is not causing states to respect or ignore acts by sister states, that is the state's responsibility. If anything, DOMA compliance woiuld cause compliance as every state would have uniform regulations in this area. RC2.5) My opponent may be correct in this assertion, however since he is arguing that homosexual marriage should be legal for the whole country, he is self defeating again as this would only be possible by a federal law issued from congress. However, Congress does have the authority to issues laws that govern federal regulations (such as tax laws) and therefore can determine what the Federal Definition of marriage is. If individual states wish to have differing definitions for their state taxes, that is within their perview, however teh congress is well within its role to define a federal definition of marriage. Final ThoughtsMy opponent writes "However, you have the burden of proof to show beyond a resonable doubt that this legal definition should stay the same. " However, this is pattenly incorrect. As Con, my only burden is to cast doubt on your assertion. I have no burden to show that the legal definition should stay the same. That isn't how debates work. If you wished to have debate that had shared burden of proof, you should have defined that in your oppening argument. ConclusionYour reasons for why DOMA is unconstitutional rest on unproven assertions and assumptions. They therefore do not stand to scruitny and should be discarded by the readers. In addition, you claim to have shown how congress can pass a bill allowing gay marriage, however you yourself argued that congress cannot pass a bill that determines the definition of marriage for states. You are contradicting yourself and therefore your points can be discarded.