Homosexual Marriage Should be legal in all US states and territories

Pro says “What my opponent as failed to understand is that a marriage license is a vital record.” Vital: “extremely important” (1) I invite my opponent to validate a marriage license as vital…. I contend it is not. Pro says “There is another fundamental right in the US that you should be able to travel freely with in the states.” I am unfamiliar with this being a right. I invite pro to validate this statement with a source. Pro says “This is why there is a Full Faith and Credit Clause in the constitution. Otherwise you would lose all you vital records when you travel to each state. Homosexual marriage bans are making you lose a vital record when you travel to each state.” The full faith and credit clause does not mean that all certified documents and professions are recognized in all states automatically. A lawyer or doctor may have to apply to get a license to operate if he/she moves to another state. Teaching certificates also have to be approved by each state. Conceal carry permits may not be recognized etc.. Some states cooperate on recognizing such certificates, but they are not required too. Pro claim of the application of the Full faith and credit clause is empirically false. Pro says “When the majority supports an action against freedom and liberty it is violation of our principles as a nation.” For example, the freedom and liberty each State has to determine the qualification of marriage?! As mentioned already in this debate, anyone can be married to anyone else, it is not an unalienable right to have such an arrangement recognized by the government. This has already been established and not refuted. In round two it was established that marriage is not an unalienable right, which pro has yet to dispute. Democracy: Pro says “I believe in the principles of democracy. I also believe there must be a check on democracy to insure the mob rule does not infringe upon the rights of others. This is why we live in a Republic. America’s founding fathers understood this. Though this check against mob rule we have as a nation become more and more free.” As someone who has a degree in political science, I grow tired of the Republic/democracy debate. Our Republic is a democracy. The founding fathers did say negative things about democracy… for example the quote pro provides. "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" Ben Franklin Likewise they said negative things about Republics… “James Madison said "In Republics, the great danger is, that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the minority."(2) I agree that there need to be checks on the power of the majority. As the Declaration of Independence states… “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” Governments are instituted to secure unalienable rights. Again, unless pro is going to contend my round two arguments that marriage recognized by the State is not an Unalienable right, a ban on types of marriage is not against the principles of this nation. Pro asks “Do homosexual people banned from marriage feel they have liberty and the pursuit of Happiness?” Sadly concluding that “No they don’t because they don’t have it.” Are there laws that prevent love? Are there laws that prevent marriage? No! People are free to pursue happiness in this nation. Including homosexual couples. They are free to marry, they are free to move, they are free to live with whomever they desire. I am a happily married man of 3 years to a wonderful wife… truth is, I couldn’t not care less if the Government recognizes my marriage. Weather they do or not, my wife and I recognize our marriage. My faith recognizes my marriage. I do not need the government’s recognition to be happy. Nothing dictates that the government has to validate someone’s marriage as a unalienable right. Including one man and one women. Pro says “They are banned from being married any all the benefits that come with that. In Utah they cannot adopt and raise children together.” All the “benefits” that come from a state recognized marriage should be available to all law abiding adults. However, it should have nothing to do with being “married.” If pro were to argue that unwed couples should be able to adopt, I would agree with him. Conclusion: Marriage is not viewed as an unalienable right in the U.S. Rather it is an Inalienable right. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. While Marriage may be a “fundamental right” that does not mean that it is unalienable. Therefore, State by State majorities can decide what should or should not be legal. Such is in standing with the founding principles of this nation. Unless pro can show that marriage recognized by the State is an Unalienable right, the resolution will remain negated. (1) http://www.merriam-webster.com... (2) http://www.infobarrel.com...