The United States federal government should legalize and recognize same sex marriage.

Opponent>>> "Also, as previously ruled in Baker v. Nelson (1971), the 14th amendment applies in some instances regarding marriages, but not others. The majority opinion in that case is quoted as follows "in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex."" Me>>> This opinion was made forty years ago. Forty years ago, prejudice was running high. This ruling was blatantly unconstitutional. The justices never ruled why the 14th Amendment did not apply. They simply said that gays do not count under equal protection, which has been proven untrue in Lawrence vs. Texas, Watkins v. Army, Lewis v. Harris, Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, California's Two Equal Marriage Cases and so many others. Baker v. Nelson did not actually look into equal protection. >>> Chief Justice Ronald M. George, in California's recent marriage case cited the Court's 1948 decision in Perez v. Sharp where the state's interracial marriage ban was held unconstitutional (Loving v. Virginia is the federal equivalent). It found that "equal respect and dignity" of marriage is a "basic civil right" that cannot be withheld from same-sex couples, that sexual orientation is a protected class like race and gender, and that any classification or discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the California State Constitution. [http://en.wikipedia.org...] Opponent>>> "The Supreme Court did not hear it. It has been ruled on by the Supreme Court, and same sex marriage bans do not violate the 14th amendment." Me>>> It did not. The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled it 40 years ago when same sex prejudice was high. Today, every time the Supreme Court looks into equal protection of gays, they find that they deserve. Every recent case shows that gays deserve equal protection and equal marriage. "If the Supreme Court of the United States forces all states to finally recognize same sex marriages, this will be an action taken by the federal government through the federal Supreme Court." Opponent>>> "The Supreme Court can't alter the law via an affirmative. They can only do it in a negative. So basically they can possibly make it illegal to ban same sex marriage, but they technically can't make same sex marriage legal." Me>>> The Supreme Court forced interracial marriage, integration of schools, voting rights and much more. They can legalize things... Opponent>>> "As stated before, the Supreme Court ruled in essence that states are not in violation of the 14th amendment if they ban same sex marriage." Me>>> The Minnesota government ruled same sex marriage illegal and the Supreme Court did not want to touch it 40 years ago. Every time same sex marriage is tried today, it wins. Gays have equal protection as so many cases have proved recently. Opponent>>> Back to Baker v. Nelson. Although my state has more to offer for gay couples, it did this by democratic legislative choice. Not by Constitutional force. Also, states rights are granted in the constitution, so to deny them would be just as unconstitutional as to deny the Congress the power to make and declare war. Me>>> Are you back on this? State's rights does not apply to the Supreme Court. It applies to the Congress. Everytime the Supreme Court rules it is due to a state violating the Constitution. Opponent>>> "its been ruled that bans on gay marriage are Constitutional." Me>>> It never has. Opponent>>> "States rights are part of the Constitution, so you're saying that the Constitution supersedes itself." Me>>> WHAT!? The Constitution particularly says that the state's have rights that are not reserved in the Constitution. The right of the Supreme Court to rule things is in the Constitution. So state's rights do not apply! If you are saying that state's rights apply to the Supreme Court, then you are saying that the Constitution is not allowed to rule on anything!!! Opponent>>> "No, it says 'The powers not delegated to the United State BY THE CONSTITUTION." Its not up for debate, that's what the document says." Me>>> Yes. God! It says that if the powers have been delegated by the Constitution, then the state's do not have them. The Supreme Court has the power to rule. Therefore, the state's do not get that right. The Supreme Court is the highest law in the land. State's rights are given to everything that the Constitution has not already designated powers to. The Supreme Court is one of those powers!!! GAH!!! Opponent>>> "The Supreme Court should abstain from ruling that the 14th amendment is violated by states if they have a ban on Same sex marriage because this would overturn previously set precedent by the Court" Me>>> This means nothing! Courts overturn things all the time! In Bowers v. Hardwick, the Court ruled that sodomy is illegal. In Lawrence v. Texas, the Court ruled sodomy should be legal. Courts have gone both ways. And in modern times, Courts have been ruling in favor of same sex couples, because they do deserve equal protection. Opponent>>> "and because it is a proper argument that "in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex"." Me>>> This has recently been countered by the California Supreme Court and other cases. Opponent>>> "I also argue that it would be inappropriate for the Supreme Court to use judicial review because this would be the greatest usurpation of state sovereignty by 9 lawyers the world has ever seen, (48 states currently find the marriage of same sex couples illegal.) and would go directly against the majority opinion of people in the United States. (Pew Poll, end of may, 49% opposed to marriage, 38% favor. Me>>> The Supreme Court is the highest law in the land. At the time when interracial marriage was legalized, only 90% of Americans supported the legalization of it. The Supreme Court and the United States Constitution overrules what the American people currently want. And it should. Opponent>>> Most recent example) This issue can be solved at the state level, that has been my argument the whole time. The Supreme Court's presence should not alter that fact. Me>>> There is no logical reason for the Supreme Court not to overrule this blatant unconstitutionality. Opponent>>> 'Abraham Lincoln court against the Supreme Court.' Me>>> So what if Lincoln has no respect for the Constitution. We already know that. He supported slavery and only ended it for the purpose of the war. We know that he suspended Habeus Corpus and imprisoned a fellow without a trial. But 100% of our founding fathers supported the Constitution. It is obvious that the 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection of the laws. In Loving v. Virginia, and Perez. v. Sharp it was ruled that marriage is a civil right and that equal protection is a rational reason to not discriminate on marriage. There is absolutely no reason to violate the Constitution, including popular opinion. When interracial was forced on states, 90% of Americans opposed it. Lawrence vs. Texas, Watkins v. Army, Lewis v. Harris, Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, California's Two Equal Marriage Cases and so many cases have proved that gays deserve equal protection status. And Perez v. Sharp and Loving v. Virginia has indicated that marriage is a civil right. It is illegal and unconstitutional to ban same sex marriage.