Legallizing Gay Marriage Nationally

Before I started, I wanted to say...3) no disrespecting any religions and/or belief systems. I will begin with my first argument.This trait is highly appreciated. Now to start.================================================1) The Constitution:1a) Freedom to Marry:Doing a quick Word Find on either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, we find the words Marriage or Civil Union are brought up not once.(1,2) Neither documents ever granted the right to marriage. There are two types of Rights.A right that is owned and granted outside the Government. (Lets call those Private Rights)Example: The right to shop in a store isn't granted by the Government, but is owned and granted solely by the store owner. If he refuses you entrance, you may not enter.A right that is given by the Government/Constitution. (Let's call those Constitutional Rights)Example: The right to bare Arms. Only the government may give or take this Right away.The first type of Right is granted only if the owner of the Right granted it. Another example is the right to your own body. No one may touch it without your permission. A Doctor doesn't have the right to touch your body because the Government grants it, but because you grant it. This is why a doctor may not perform a life-saving surgery on you if you say no. Marriage may be recognized by the Law, but it's not a Government-Given right. There is no constitutional amendment allowing it. Any Supreme Court ruling legalizing Gay Marriage has no actual grounds within the Constitution.1b) First Amendment:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." -First Amendment(3)The Pro is right on one thing. Separation of Church and State.The First Amendment claims no law may regulate the Church, and by extension, it's institutions. The written concept of Separation of Church and State came from a letter from Thomas Jefferson in 1802, over a decade after the Bill of Rights was signed.(4)The Separation of Church and State is two way... The Church may not rule over the State, and vice versa. For this reason we conclude the debate by answering the question of whom governs Marriage.Since Marriage isn't in the Constitution, we can conclude it's not a Constitutional Right. Marriage has, for centuries, been a Religious Institution, this means that in no way may the Government write laws regarding the granting of Marriage, as Marriage is under the ownership of the Church (Religion). In America, Marriage is often an Institution of the Christian Church.As written in the Constitution, the State may "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" One exercise of the Church is granting Marriage. The Government make no law prohibiting (or by extension, restricting) the free exercise of the Church, including who they may choose to grant Marriage to.Separation of Church and State doesn't only apply when it's convenient for the State or Gay people. It's in place for both sides at all times. The State may not get involved in a Religious Institution (like Marriage) and make laws regarding it. Since Marriage isn't a Constitutional Right, only the Church may decide who can get married.One method of avoiding this was done by Vermont in 2000, that didn't legalize Gay Marriage, but instead Instituted a Government-owned institution, the Civil Union. The Civil Union was similar to Marriage, but wasn't owned by a Church. Because of this, the Civil Union could be granted freely to anyone.[1]http://www.archives.gov...[2]http://www.ushistory.org...[3] http://www.law.cornell.edu...[4]http://www.freerepublic.com...[]2) The Civil Union:The Gay Rights Advocates, who fail to realize that Marriage isn't a Constitutional Right, scream for the unfair intrusion on a Religious Institution, therefore breaking the concept of Separation of Church and State. To break this wall of separation, you must also allow the Church to freely have say in Government, since Government now has say in Church.Vermont had originally established a Union of it's own for Gay people to use, as to avoid establishing a restrictive law on the Rights of the Church. Not long after, the Gay Advocates demanded more.The Civil Union::A legal union of a same-sex couple, sanctioned by a civil authority.(5):The legal status that ensures to same-sex couples specified rights and responsibilities of married couples.(6):A relationship between a couple that is legally recognized by a governmental authority and has many of the rights and responsibilities of marriage.(7)The question of whether Marriage should be available to everyone isn't the Governments to answer, and so the Civil Union was created. If the Church doesn't offer Marriage to everyone, it's their right to do so.An example of this is one's house. If you don't want people of a curtain race entering your house, than that is your decision to make. The Government may not force you to allow them in. Your decision may be questionable, but it's yours none-the-less and only yours.If the Church refuses to open their Institution to something they consider a great evil, than it's theirs to do so with.[5]http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[6]http://www.merriam-webster.com...[7]http://dictionary.reference.com...[] 3) The Slippery Slope:A Supreme Court ruling in favor of Gay Marriage would simply open the doors to many of the following:1) Legalized Marriage with Children2) Legalized Marriage with Animals3) Legalized Marriage with Multiple PartnersA principle of the Supreme Court and many other courts is to review prior Court Cases. Many forms of 'Marriage' have no grounds to stand on as of right now, and that's good. Marriage with animals and polygamy, for example.If Gay Marriage is ruled Constitutional, than these will have a strong Precedent to stand on. That has been the cause of many prior Court Ruling. Courts simply look back on prior decisions for guidance, and we'd create a terrible precedent for terribly rulings in the Future. We must always take into account the affects of our decisions today, and what they become in the future.Rulings in the past have led to many great slippery slopes afterwards, but that principle works on terrible slippery slopes as well.It's not arguable, either. If it's legal for a man to marry another man, than it should be legal for a man to marry 2 or 3 women. If it's okay to marry someone because it's 'true love,' than why not marry a 12 year old? If it's for 'true love,' it should be legal, right?There has been a practice of setting up walls around slippery slope, that the nation doesn't cross, without exception, because crossing it once means the wall bare little weight. If you break a wall once, why not twice?These legal walls keep the nation from heading down slippery slopes like this one.================================================Conclusion:Marriage is not a Constitutional Right, and belongs to the Church as a Religious Institution.Separation of Church and State prevents the Government from making laws regarding a Religious Institution, such as Marriage. Belonging to the Church means the Church may choose who to grant it to, regardless of how unfair someone feels it may be.If you feel Gay people should have a Union, focus on one such as the Civil Union. Taking the rights of the Church to govern it's own institution is simply wrong.Gay Marriage legalization implies that anyone should have the right to marry freely without restrictions, including the 3 examples given above. I pass it on to Pro.