Gay marriae should not be acknowledged by the Federal Goveronment

Pro states that none of the clauses I've mentioned (Supremacy Clause, Due Process Clause, etc.) grant the Supreme Court the authority to change the Constitution or U.S. law. Apparently Pro has not read the last rounds thoroughly. The Supreme Court absolutely and positively has the authority to make rulings on marriage cases. I've cited over a dozen examples throughout this debate. The Supreme Court is the highest tribunal in the nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution [1]. Virtually all SCOTUS cases involve cases where the defendant (or state) appealed a state court decision on the basis that the state supreme court misapplied the law, or violated the U.S. Constitution. Ergo SCOTUS did not "change the Constitution" as Pro fraudulently implies, but rather INTERPRETED the Constitution as such to decide it provided equal protection for gay people/couples. Since the role of SCOTUS is to interpret and apply Constitutional protection to U.S. citizens, and their ruling via the Supremacy Clause trumps state rulings, I have explained (many times) where SCOTUS' authority derives in their marriage ruling. Pro writes, "The supreme Cout did have the power to decide segregation was unconstitutional, but if the supreme court decided that it also applied to peope based on gender, thus men should be allowed to go into the womens bathroom, that would be uconstitutional." This is not supported. Since SCOTUS could decide segregation and bans on interracial marriage were Unconstitutional, they could logically follow up with gay marriage bans being Unconstitutional. However Pro hasn't explained why not -- he simply makes an irrelevant point about gendered bathrooms (which are not Unconstitutional by the way). Pro has no rebuttal at all regarding slavery, bans on interfaith marriages, human sacrifice, etc. except to make confusing and nonsensical comments on the legality of those things. My point was that all of those things were once legal - proving that the law as written is not always just, therefore redefining the terms for marriage might be justified. Pro writes, "Obcourse, the Declaration of ndependance protects 'the pursuit of happyness,' for this reason homosexuality should not be illegal, but that doesn't mean we have to be a part of it by acknowladging it." Let the records show that acknowledging something does NOT equal being part of it. I acknowledge that abortion occurs but I have never been part of one. Pro nor anyone else is required to have a gay wedding or embrace gay weddings; only accept that gay marriage is the law of the land. In the last round, I've argued at length why gay marriage is both righteous and moral. It protects people in loving gay relationships who simply look for equal protection and rights under the law. My opponent has dropped virtually all of my arguments on why gay marriage isn't harmful but is helpful. I've used the other rounds to explain and repeat how SCOTUS has the authority to dictate marriage parameters by law, as well as outlined the specific clauses and legal referendums they have used to do so. Thanks! [1] http://www.supremecourt.gov...