LGBT couples should be allowed marrage licenses

I am sorry for missing last round, I didn't realize there was a short timer.I clearly stated how the 14th amendment is interpreted by courts and sourced it. It functions with equal application, state interest, and purpose. Also, heterosexual marriage is traditional because it has only been within the last few years that homosexuals could get married in any country. Also, my opponent does not seem to understand how the equal protection clause works because they think anything non-traditional is protected by it.I agree that Traditional marriage laws is would be in" violation of the due process clause of the 14th amendment when preventing such marriage is not within the legitimate interest of the state." However, there is a state interest which I explained in a previous round.Dealing with responsible procreation, there are methods such as adoption, which has nothing to do with marriage, and assisted-reproduction. With assisted-reproduction though relating to homosexual couples it will always deprive a child of a mother or father which isn't responsible procreation as I explained when I made the original argument. I never claimed this was the sole reason and in fact in my original post I gave three reasons not one sole one. Also, it is true inmates can get married, but that doesn't mean the inmate will always be in prison, and infertile couples could use the assisted-reproduction mentioned earlier.Now to best environment. I don't know why my thinks this is about decreasing adoptions since adoptions were never mentioned in this point. Also, there referenced studies is just comparing heterosexual couples to homosexual couples. It is very important to note that this point was about biological v. non-biological parents not saying homosexuals can't raise kids like heterosexuals. Therefore, those studies have no relevance to this point at all.Marriage and Divorce rates. I checked my opponent's sources and became rather confused. Massachusetts Marriage Rate 2004: 6.2Massachusetts Marriage Rate 2011: 5.5Every year between 2004 and 2011 either the rate went down or stayed the same. This is not at all what my opponent claimed. [1]Massachusetts Divorce Rate 2004: 2.2Massachusetts Divorce Rate 2011: 2.7Also each years was higher or stayed the same except for 2008. Also, this is not what my opponent claimed. [2]It is true Nevada has the highest divorce rate, but they also have same-sex civil unions too.Goodridge v. Department of Public Health was found in violation of the Massachusetts constitution not the federal one [3], and are therefore unrelated.Yes, marriage laws discriminate,, based on sex just like we discriminate when it comes to bathrooms and sports teams. It is because men and women are biologically different and those differences matter. Dealing with United States v. Windsor, it is important to note that case was about "Does the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines the term 'marriage' under federal law as a 'legal union between one man and one woman' deprive same-sex couples who are legally married under state laws of their Fifth Amendment rights to equal protection under federal law?" [4]. In this case the answer was yes, that the states define marriage and not the federal government. This is unrelated to if homosexuals have a right to marriage. Concluding, my opponents' arguments are filled with falsifications, and misrepresentations. I clearly presented how the 14th amendment is applied and how traditional marriage laws fit the constitution.Sources[1] http://www.cdc.gov...[2] http://www.cdc.gov...[3] http://masscases.com...[4] http://www.oyez.org...