Gay marriae should not be acknowledged by the Federal Goveronment

Pro claims that I "cannot come up with a clause" that shows the Supreme Court's decision was valid. On the contrary, I've outlined the Supremacy Clause (which Pro dropped). I've explained how SCOTUS used the 14th amendment to rule in favor of gay marriage. I've explained the Due Process Clause (which Pro did not successfully negate) and Supreme Court precedent in multiple cases. Right there I've already used two clauses of the Constitution to justify my case, so Pro is lying. Moreover I've explained how legal precedent and the Supreme Court works insofar as interpreting the Constitution and how they have done so justly. Pro keeps repeating arguments that I have already negated which is a waste of time and character space. For example, he writes "The Supreme Court had no power to grant the American people any 'right to marriage' as they claimed in Loving v. Virginia. I've already explained that the United States Supreme Court has ruled fourteen times that marriage is a fundamental right of all (adult) individuals - not just in Loving v. Virginia but in other cases which I cited with sources; see the first line of Round 2 for reference. This must be extended even if Pro ignores it. Furthermore, I've explained pretty explicitly how the Court came to its decision in that case. Once again, the court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Ergo, Pro is lying when he says the Court had "no power" to grant the people the right to marriage. They had that power 14 times and in the Loving case in particular, invoked 2 parts of the Constitution to validate their ruling. The Supremacy Clause gives them the power to use federal law to trump state law. Pro continues to say that since the original definition of marriage included a man and a woman, that definition should remain the same. However this is a fallacious appeal to tradition which I've explained in the last round. Pro did not respond to the flaw in his faulty logic. Once again, just because something was written one way by law doesn't mean the law is justified or should remain the same. Please extend my examples of interfaith and interracial marriages once being illegal, but the law was rewritten to accommodate a better standard of morality. Gay tax payers deserve the right to choose their marriage partners if their partners are other consenting adults. Pro has not explained why gay relationships or marriages are immoral outside of fallacious appeals to tradition and authority. Human sacrifice used to be legal. Only white males used to be able to legally own property. Surely the laws of the past should not always be upheld. Gay people in loving relationships deserve to have equal protection and receive the same benefits, rights and privileges as their married peers. They are citizens whose relationships will not harm themselves or others. Marriage is an institution that benefits both the individual and society as well as strengthens families. Families come in all different shapes and sizes, however, all deserve legal rights and protections. Children born to gay parents might not have the same protection as their peers with heterosexual parents. This is dangerous and unfair. Couples in loving relationships who seek to make their partnerships legally official should be afforded that opportunity regardless of their sexuality. By Pro's logic, a man and a woman who are not in love (and may be gay) or barely know each other can get married, whereas two people of the same sex who are in loving relationships should not be able to marry each other. That is illogical. Sexuality or sex should not be the basis or criteria for marriage. Gay marriage has little to no effect on the heterosexual community. It is therefore none of their business to dictate how other relationships and families are recognized. Gay people and relationships will exist (and seek legal protections) whether homophobes appreciate them or not. These couples should have hospital visitation rights and receive the same tax considerations; there is no reason to view them as separate from heterosexual married couples under the eyes of the law. Just because it makes some people uncomfortable is entirely irrelevant. The separation of church and state means religious people have no rhyme or reason to impose their archaic moral standards on others. Promoting gay marriage means gay people will be more accepted. This will decrease depression and suicide amongst gays, and make people have an easier time coming out and being in healthy relationships they don't have to keep hidden or be ashamed of. Same-sex couples look to have families by having biological or adopted children of their own, and families deserve legal protection under the Constitution -- which is exactly what SCOTUS has ruled many times over, and rightfully so.