The Federal Defense of Marriage Act is Unconstitutional

I am arguing that DOMA is unconstitutional. DOMA makes gay marriage illegal. Therefore, I am more or less arguing that gay marriage should be legal. If he understands that, then he should continue to read the rest of the debate. If not, I'm sorry you didn't understand, just tell me and we can end this thing or start over. Without meaning to be blunt or rude, I must point out that my opponent has not cited the constitution once in his argument. He misses the entire point of the debate, which is that we are arguing constitutionality, not social acceptability or history. He also seems to lack an in depth understanding of constitutional clauses and judicial procedures used by the court to interpret the constitution. He also seems not to have read my case. That said, I would like to rebut his opening He opens up by saying "I will take a more historical approach. Look at when the government and the constitution was formed. Homosexuality was completely unallowed and was a sign of disrespect and a abnormality. Since it was not socially acceptable at that time it would not be made for it to be acceptable in this time because it has not been changed. " Firstly, his historical approach really doesn't pertain to the constitution at all. Therefore, it is irrelevant. However, I will go further by saying that his reasoning in this statement is flawed. At the time that the constitution was written, interracial marriages were not allowed and were 'abnormal' as well. However, ever since landmark supreme court case "Loving v. Virginia" (1967), denying interracial marriage has been unconstitutional (1). As you can see, things change, and the same rationale applies here. Also, at the time that the constitution was written, the fourteenth amendment did not exist. Today, the fourteenth amendment does exist, providing gays with equal protection of the laws. My opponents first contention is difficult to understand, but he seems to say that there was no clear perspective on homosexuality when the constitution was written, therefore we cannot allow it. See my above paragraph for the refutation. In his second contention, my opponent says "Amendments may be your response. No, it is still not socially acceptable to be a homosexual and thus according to the earlier argument is still not acceptable. " Essentially, my opponent claims that social acceptability trumps constitutional amendment. Well, constitutional amendment are just as much part of the constitution as the rest of the constitution. Social acceptability never trumps the constitution. It may not be socially acceptable or nice to publicly burn the flag, but you can still do it, because the first amendment gives you that right (Texas v. Johnson) (2). My opponents third contention is that my attacks are irrelevant, and they don't explain why DOMA is unconstitutional. My response: DUDE, DID YOU EVEN READ MY CASE ! ?! ? I said that DOMA violates the "full faith and credit clause", the "due process clause" and "equal protection" clause, and does not stand up to intermediate or strict scrutiny (which is a test the Supreme Court uses to determine if discrimination is unconstitutional). My opponent then picked on sentences I said that didn't include the word "constitution" and presumed that they weren't related to the constitution. Some of those sentences totally pertain to the constitution, such as the quote concerning strict scrutiny. My opponent just failed to grasp the connection. That's not my fault. Other quotes were simply me anticipating opponent's arguments. My opponent puts these out of context. If you include these anticipations with the refutations I provide it all makes sense. Anyway, my opponent has failed to refute any of my arguments concerning constitutionality. Therefore, my case still stands. If my opponent wants to continue this debate, I look forward to his response. Sources: (1). http://en.wikipedia.org... (2). http://en.wikipedia.org...