The State (the goverment) has no compellig reason to legalize SSM.

org for following this debate. I will be arguing that the state has very good reasons for allowing SSM to occur. I hope you all enjoy this debate. SSM is Constitutional! My first point will be based on the fact that Same-Sex Marriage is Constitutional. The closest parallel in our legal history to the debate over gay marriage has been the miscegenation laws of the 1950’s. These laws prevented interracial marriages between whites and blacks. Hannah Arendt, a journalist and intellectual of the ‘50’s and ‘60’s, is quoted by Andrew Sullivan in “Why a civil union isn't marriage [1]," argued against the miscegenation laws, saying:“The right to marry whoever one wishes is an elementary human right compared to which the right to attend an integrated school, the right to sit where one pleases on a bus, the right to go into any hotel or recreation area or place of amusement, regardless of one's skin or color or race are minor indeed. Even political rights, like the right to vote, and nearly all other rights enumerated in the Constitution, are secondary to the inalienable human rights to `life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' . .. and to this category the right to home and marriage unquestionably belongs. ” Sullivan, senior editor at the New Republic, goes on to say:“Would any heterosexual in America believe he had a right to pursue happiness if he could not marry the person he loved? What would be more objectionable to most people — to be denied a vote in the next presidential election or to no longer have legal custody over their child or legal attachment to their wife or husband? Not a close call. ” This being said, can we deny that the right to marriage - to whomever one might choose is constitutionally guaranteed? Keeping gay marriage illegal also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. According to the American Civil Liberties Union [2]:“The law (against same-sex marriage) discriminates on the basis of sex because it makes one's ability to marry depend on one's gender. 'With this being said, I will like to point out that every government official swears an oath that begins with the words: "I solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States' [3] And with this presented I will make it clear that the government has every reason to support the constitution that not only governs the people, but also the government itself. Since SSM is constitutional the government is intitled to support it and legalize it. SSM would help state and federal governments economically. This next point will be based on monitary gain that would help the state as a result of the legalization of SSM. It is estimated that the wedding industry would experience a windfall, and there would be an immediate gain in revenue of up to 17 billion dollars (it would also be good to know that the wedding industry is a 70 billion dollar a year industry) [4]. Also, the William's Institute released a report stating:"Total spending on wedding arrangements and tourism by resident same-sex couples and their guests will add an $88-million boost to the Washington economy over the first three years. This spending is likely to generate $8 million in tax revenue for state and local governments. The figures in the report draw upon data on average wedding expenditures in Washington and tourism reports from 2010, along with data regarding marriage expenses by same-sex couples in other states. The report considers that couples in existing registered domestic partnerships might have different spending patterns from couples that do not have that status. Even if there was no new spending by the 7,518 couples currently in registered domestic partnerships, the state would see an estimated increase in spending of $18 million and a tax boost of $1.6 million. " [5]I don't know about anyone else here but 88 million dollars worth of economic boost to one state is a very good thing especially since the entire country is going through a bit of a financtial crises. If legalizing SSM would help Washington this much, certainly it would help out the rest of the states in our union. ConclusionIn conclusion, I would like to say again that it is the job of the state to defend the liberties of the American people, and since the basic humans rights of all people are that of life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness and that by banning SSM the government would not be doing it's proper job, that means the state has a reason to legalize SSM. And the very fact that the state could make a great deal of financtial gain the state should legalize SSM. Thank You for reading I will now await my opponents response. ~~Sources~~1. . http://igfculturewatch.com...2. . http://essayblog.org...3. . http://en.wikipedia.org...4. . http://www.marketwatch.com...5. . http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...