Gay marriage should be legal

I'll attack my opponents case then move to crystallize my own. First off, as clarification, are you defending the federal legalization of homosexuality (?), because by your arguments, that's what I'm assuming you mean. ================================================================================= "My first argument can be given in the form of a syllogism: 1. A man has the right to marry a woman. A woman has the right to marry a man. 2. Men and women should have equal rights. 3. Therefore, men should have the same right to marry men as women do and women should have the same right to marry women as men do." My Response: Ok, I agree with the first 2 premises. However, the 3rd is not linked what so ever to the first 2. "Therefore, men should have the same right to marry men as women do and women should have the same right to marry women as men do." According to the Syllogism, men and women should have the same rights. But then the syllogistic conclusion is that gay marriage is allowed. My opponent has no link. Both men and women have the same rights; to marry a person of the opposite gender. Looking at the first 2 lines, all my opponent tries to get at is equal protection for men and women. Now, my opponent will try and turn the syllogism to make it say that GAY men and women should have the same rights. However, think this through. THEY DO. Just because a man "feels" like marrying another man doesn't make it an explicit right. Everyone has the same rights, marrying a member of the opposite gender. The gays have a right to exercise this (Even if they may not feel like it.) "The second argument I will give here is a little more in depth. I believe that the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits any law against gay marriage. The 1st section 14th amendment reads as follows: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Laws against gay marriage clearly "abridge the privileges" of certain citizens. More specifically, that privilege is marriage and those citizens are those men and women who wish to marry those of the same sex." My Response: Ok, the 14 amendment. My opponent is looking specifically at the "equal protection clause". This is all well and good, however my opponent misses one key issue. The Federal Government has NO RIGHT to determine what marriage is. That power, is given specifically to the States. By legalizing gay marriage federally, then the federal government is overstepping there power and pushing off the balance between Federal and State. Also, looking a little deeper into the issue. The Equal Protection Clause quotes: "person". "Couples" don't have rights. "Couples" don't actually exist—a couple is just an abstract pairing of two individuals, who each have individual rights. And as we've seen, each individual has the same rights, regardless of how those individuals are arbitrarily grouped into different pairs. Man with women, man with man, etc. =============================================================================== My Case: Contention I. Legalizing Gay Marriage on the Federal Level undermines State power. As I have previously brought up in the rebuttal, legalizing gay marriage undermines state power. No where in the Constitution does the right of marriage belong to the Supreme Court, Congress or the Executive Branch. That power belongs to the state, according to the framers of the Constitution. Furthermore, making a federal law nullifies certain state constitutions, like Virginia, that define marriage between a man and a women. The balance must be kept, the state cannot lose a power its had for centuries. Gay Marriage is fine, if legalized on the state level. However, my opponent by claiming the 14th Amendment, is saying that it must be federal. *I reserve the right to add my remaining arguments in the next round.* Thank you ladies and gentlemen.