Gay marriae should not be acknowledged by the Federal Goveronment

== Legal Arguments == Pro does not contest the Supremacy clause, and his entire argument crumbles under Marbury v. Madison [1].This was a landmark SCOTUS case in which the Court formed the basis for judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution. A federal court has a special obligation to satisfy itself not only of its own jurisdiction, but also that of the lower courts in a cause under review. Since Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court has claimed the final word on what the Constitution means, so state provisions that conflict must yield to those interpretations. In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned [within the judicial power of the United States], the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.— U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2, Clause 2The Supreme Court shall also have appellate jurisdiction from the circuit courts and courts of the several states, in the cases herein after provided for; and shall have power to issue writs of prohibition to the district courts [...] and writs of mandamus [...] to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States.— Judiciary Act of 1789, § 13Pro claims there is little to no link between gay marriage and Loving v. Virginia. That is false. The Supreme Court's decision on marriage is based on the premise that there is a “fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person” to marry. That right requires that the person be able to choose who to marry. “This abiding connection between marriage and liberty is why Loving invalidated interracial marriage bans under the Due Process Clause" [2].I should also point out that Pro's reference to Title VII is entirely moot, seeing as how that is a legal standard for EMPLOYMENT [3]. Every single one of his arguments on why sexuality should not apply to Title VII is irrelevant. Pro misrepresents the definition of "discriminate" and claims discrimination is only valid against the demographics protected under Title VII which is #1 wrong and #2 irrelevant. Discrimination is 100% legal and protected by the first amendment. It is only illegal in the case of employment, hence Title VII, and this debate has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with employment. Pro then goes on to claim that gay marriage is immoral. That's interesting because he specified that he did not want to argue the merit of gay marriage, but whether or not the USFG (SCOTUS) has the legal authority to implement gay marriage at the federal level -- which I've already proven that they absolutely do. So for now I'll finish explaining why the USFG should acknowledge gay marriage, and then I'll address my opponent's points on the morality of gay marriage. Many decisions by Supreme Court Justices have interpreted the Tenth Amendment to protect the powers that states have traditionally used as part of government that operates closest to the people themselves. "The bans on same-sex marriage in Tennessee and other states, the SCOTUS ruling said, must yield to that Amendment’s guarantee of equality in how a law applies to the most intimate relationship between people – that is, the choice of a life partner in marriage... From the Supreme Court’s view of the matter, this was an extension of the constitutional idea that race cannot be used as the basis for access to marriage (and divorce). The idea that people of different races cannot marry was ended by the court in 1967 in the case of Loving v. Virginia. Since then, the category of people who cannot be excluded from equal legal opportunity has been extended to gay people" [4]. == Moral Arguments ==Pro fallaciously appeals to tradition in order to distinguish moral right and wrong. Just because marriage was traditionally defined as being between a man and a woman does not make it the moral absolute. After all, interfaith and interracial marriages were once banned by law, but we recognize that assuming the ways of the past are automatically correct is illogical. Pro is wrong anyhow about marriage being between a man and a woman in every culture throughout history. Indeed various types of same-sex unions have existed all over the world throughout the ages, including ancient times through present modern day [5]. My opponent goes on to claim that "false marriages" are not recognized under the law, i.e. marriages involving children. This is irrelevant because the entire debate is about whether or not gay marriage should qualify as a false marriage. And why should it? Once again, marriage has been ruled 14 times as a fundamental right of all (adult) individuals. Pro has not proven that gay marriage is immoral, but rather gays do not have federal protection under (some) aspects of the law such as employment discrimination. Pro writes, "Gay people would not be denied accomidation or equal protection undeer law if we chose not to acknoledge gay marriages." --- This is a completely nonsensical and redundant statement. He just said that gay people would not be denied equal protection if we chose to deny their equal protection. Che? What? Huh? Essentially Pro's case is that barring gay marriage is legitimate discrimination, because sexual orientation is not a protected class under an irrelevant employment standard. But I noted that Perry v. Schwarzenegger was a 2010 federal court decision in which the Court concludes that the Constitutional right to marry protects an individual's choice of marital partner. Children do not qualify; they cannot enter legal contracts. However Pro has failed to prove or even explain why gay marriage in particular is immoral. He has only appealed to tradition and the (irrelevant) laws already in place. Since we have a few more rounds to discuss, I'll let him try and address this moral issue if he so chooses.I've already won the legal argument; the Supreme Court does have the authority to make gay marriage the law of the land.[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu...[2] http://thinkprogress.org...[3] https://www.eeoc.gov...[4] http://blog.constitutioncenter.org...[5] https://en.wikipedia.org...