State's should have the right to impose gay marriage not the feds

Ok I will respond and explain why Con wins:"Minorities are far more often to benefit from the state government instead of the federal government since the majority of America is what elects the politicians that run our country."Obviously minorities do not benefit if you are advocating for removing their rights simply to please the majority, the purpose of the federal government is to protect those rights and thus it is their job to do so. "The federal government is one entity that only makes one decision. When it comes to civil rights issues this could anger many people. Texas can make a decision to benefit the people that live their, while New York can benefit their people. These two states have two very different ideologies. What if the federal government decided to do away with gay marriage altogether. The people of New York will still be protected by their state laws. That's why I think states should have control of this issue, because if you give the federal government the power over this then they could take it away."Once again, it is not the governments job to please a majority but instead to protect rights, you have not shown that states will be protecting a right instead you have said its ok if they don't protect rights because you don't want anyone to be angry. Slavery would still exist if we left it up to missouri to abolish it by them selves. Women would not be able to vote in some areas because men don't support it."The right way to legalize gay marriage without any opposition is to let the states enforce it on their own. Look at the world today. The federal government abolished segregation yet African Americans continued to face discrimination. It is better to let things happen gradually that way they will last forever with little or no opposition."segregation still exists and its arrogant to assert that it doesn't, example - Omaha, Ne which had/has legal segregation. However federal government can and should do away with this, if we wait for the majority to approve of change we are depriving the minority of rights intentionally to please the majority."Also you accused me of advocating segregation. I never mentioned anything about where someone could live. The word segregation means to separate where people can go. You might want to check your vocabulary. See the definition of segregation at http://dictionary.reference.com...... ."You made the statement :"I understand that this is a big civil rights issue, but the problem is no one looks out for the Christians who aren't comfortable with living with gay marriage in their community."The christians advocated for slavery and have deprived minorities of rights, segregation is seperation and that is what occurs when you allow places like nebraska (https://en.wikipedia.org...) to pass laws and tax areas based off race.WHY YOU VOTE CON:You vote con today because my opponent has not shown that states deserve this right, constitutionally the federal government holds this job. This is unrefuted.You will vote con because my opponent failed to provide his BOP.You will vote con because I have shown that ignoring the minorities rights to please the majority violates the constitution.You will vote con because I have shown states will not protect individual rights, we cannot rely on them, if we give the option to ignore rights some will.thankyou