The U.S.F.G. should withhold revenue from states unless they legalize same-sex marriage

(EDIT: Unaware of the 5000 character limit, so my original response has been trimmed down to fit) Thanks to my opponent. I must clarify, however, that I will be debating a con position against the original Resolution. In his opening statement, Pro asserts "Same-sex marriage should be recognized as a federal right, applicable in all 5(0) U.S. States and D.C...." However, same-sex marriage is NOT currently a federal right afforded by the U.S. Constitution, nor is that the subject of our debate, therefore I need make no refutation as to Pro's claim, and any further arguments predicated on the assumption that same-sex marriage rights should be granted in the U.S. Constitution are to be considered invalid and irrelevant to the current debate. I will first attempt to quantify and refute each of my opponents arguments, after which I will present my own arguments in support of my position. 1. Pro cites the equal protection clause outlined in the 14th Amendment as his basis for the first argument presented. This is a clear misinterpretation of the purpose and application of the equal protection clause. The clause states that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This is to say that all people are afforded equal rights under the laws that currently exist. For example, Plessy vs. Fergusen, one of the first and most important rulings to interpret the equal protection clause, found that it was unconstitutional to try black defendants against an all-white jury, as that did not accurately represent a jury of their peers. As the resolution being debated is not concerning the equal enforcement of existing law, but rather the forced enactment of a law by the states in accordance with federal mandate, this argument does nothing to further my opponents case. The claim of relevancy to the second argument presented, namely the reference to the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, must be equally denied, as the federal government's jurisdiction regarding public health and safety issues is more robust than dealing with a moral or ethical issue (and rightly so!) 2. In this argument, my opponent apparently continues to argue for his point stated in his opening argument, rather than the Resolution initially presented. We are not debating whether or not same-sex marriage should be a federal law (it shouldn't), we are debating whether or not the federal government has the authority to levy a tax or penalty against individual States who refuse to conform with a federally issued mandate not specifically enumerated by the Constitution as held by congress, namely the issuance of licenses for marriage, which are held to be rights granted to the individual States. 3. My opponents argument here is apparently that his position is correct because now would be an ideal time to enact it. I maintain that the ease of enforcing a policy has no bearing on its correctness, and my opponent must therefore cede this point. 4. I am again dismayed that my opponent has not provided a single argument relevant to the Resolution. My opponent has also pretty much summed up his overall viewpoint with the statement "public perception of authority is a factor in societal attitudes." He is clearly saying that it is morally just for the government to force a viewpoint upon its citizens by way of a mandate contrary to their desires, as evidenced by their decisions in the voting booth. I put this question to my opponent: If the position was shifted, and the resolution was whether or not the U.S.F.G should withhold funding from states who LEGALIZE same-sex marriage, what would your position be then? 5. This is not an either-or situation, as my opponent presents. He posits that either same-sex marriage is legal, or we live in a theocracy. This is a gross oversimplification of the issue (chopped this for lenth). My argument: This issue was really very straightforward for me. We have a Constitution that clearly enumerates powers to Congress, and those powers not specifically given to Congress reside in the States. Among these powers not given to Congress is the power to issue licenses of marriage. It is unconstitutional and unjust for the Federal government to countermand State authority and penalize States for non compliance to a federal mandate which oversteps the power granted it by the United States Constitution, and doing so would set a precedent that would allow the Federal Government nearly unbridled power to dictate public policy on a state and local level in the name of 'public interest.' I welcome my opponents responses, and remind him that we are debating specifically the issue of the U.S. Federal Government withholding money from states that refuse to adopt pro same-sex marriage laws, NOT whether or not same sex marriage should be a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.