Marriage Rights Should be Determined by the States

The constitution does not give people the right to redefine what marriage is for everyone. You cannot compare interracial marriage to same-sex marriage, they are two entirely different issues. Interracial marriage does not redefine what marriage is, because it is still a civil and religious union between one man and one woman. Same-sex marriage does redefine what marriage is, because it fundamentally changes what marriage means. You can argue until you're blue in the face that morality does not matter, but if morality does not matter to you, would you be open to legally sanctioned marriage between a brother and sister or even polygamy? Then again who is to say that polygamy is necessarily wrong? Some religious communities believe in polygamy, and if these religious communities have enough clout in their state, why can't they practice marriage between one man and several women? The people of Utah might choose to redefine marriage to include polygamy. Under your logic the entire nation should follow Utah's example and redefine marriage to include the right to have multiple wives. "But wait," you might say. Polygamists are a small minority in our country, why should we change the definition of marriage for the sake of a small minority? If you make this argument, you are making the argument that because same-sex couples are more numerous they somehow have more right to redefine marriage than a smaller minority. The reality is that both groups occupy an ambiguous place in our nation. They are both groups of people that practice forms of marital union that are at odds with the morality of society. Now like I stated in the previous round, the United States has many different shades of morality and thus they have many different definitions of what marriage is. What is necessarily wrong with allowing each state to come up with their own moral solution to the question of same-sex unions? In California domestic partnerships are legal, same-sex couples can enter into partnerships nearly identical to marriage for economic and social benefits. The only difference is that religion is removed from the equation, because to the people of California marriage is not a secular institution. In regards to your "tyranny of the majority" statement, let's not forget that the majority of the people in America do not live in states that recognize same-sex marriages. If it weren't for the States being able to decide how they want to define marriage, same-sex marriage would be illegal across the nation. On the flip side, if we were to force same-sex marriage upon the entire country we'd have a "tyranny of the minority." In a popular government the people should have every right to determine what is right or wrong, this is a cornerstone of representative government. The arguments against same-sex marriage are obvious, the proponents of same-sex marriage just refuse to acknowledge their validity. You cannot just discard the moral argument, because they in turn argue that it isn't moral to disallow same-sex marriage. You cannot say that you have every right to redefine marriage as between one man and one woman, because if you do that you can redefine marriage to include almost anything society considers to be depraved. Furthermore disallowing same-sex marriage is not a violation of the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment pertains to discrimination and giving people the same or equal opportunities under the law. That means that the States are only really obliged to provide similar rights and opportunities to same-sex couples that they do to their heterosexual counterparts. Many States choose to accomplish this through civil unions or domestic partnerships, reconciling their moral believes about marriage with their moral believes about liberty. In conclusion, we must not forgot that it is the people who govern. Representatives may make the laws, but they do so only with the approval of the people. If you wish to avoid a so called "tyranny of the majority" you'll support the rights of each state to decide what marriage means to them, because if we were to have a vote today, the vast majority of people who do not approve of same-sex marriage would ban it across the country. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...