Gay Marriage should be allowed under our current Constitutional and judicial standards.

Pro committed several errors in spelling and grammar in his opening presentation, all of which are obvious. I ask that Pro take more time and consideration before presenting a topic, serious or otherwise. The spell check option is free. Pro states, "The Unites States of America is founded upon the principles of Libery (sic), Freedom (sic), personal choice, and most of all we are suppose (sic) to be a land of equal opportunity. " The United States has a founding document – the US Constitution. The Constitution makes no proclamation that personal choice be considered a freedom without limits. Liberty and freedom are ambiguous terms. I do not have the liberty to kill some one I dislike, nor do I have the freedom to violate laws without punishment. The US Constitution weighs the balance between individual freedoms/liberties and the administration of the government and the government's interest in promoting the common welfare. The weighing process is maintained by the explicit separation of powers mandated in the Constitution. The Constitution applies limits to all branches in the respect that majority rulings must respect the rights of the minority. The Constitution, although fluid, is still a limiting document, and I see nothing suggesting "personal choice" in all respects is a founding principle. The Founding principles are embedded in the Constitution and no where in this founding document can one find unlimited liberty, freedom, or personal choice. Pro is incorrect on this point. Pro's statement also declares that the US is a land of equal opportunity, but does so in rhetorical fashion. We are a land of equal opportunity, but we are not necessarily a land that ensures equal results. I do not see how changing a legally recognized union to include same sex members, adds or subtracts from opportunity. Please remember, the state cannot prevent two people of the same sex from being a couple, or friends, or friends with benefits, etc. Two people of any race, color, sex, or creed are not prevented from recognizing their own personal unions, but the state is, absent a compelling reason from Pro, not obligated to recognize such unions. Pro state's, "The First ammendment (sic) is designed to protect us from any type of theocratical (sic) law. " Define your term as "theocratical law" is not a term I recognize. Do you mean the first amendment is designed to preclude a theocracy? If so, you are on solid ground, but if you mean the US cannot define a position based on theological teachings then you need to support your case as many of our laws have backgrounds in various religious foundations. Many of the founding fathers were Masons so this should come as no surprise. "The 14th ammendment (sic) is there to make sure everyone is guarranteed (sic) dual (sic) process and that everyone is treated the same under the law. " Correct. To my knowledge all laws pertaining to marriage via state statutes do apply equally. I am not familiar with a law that allows two heterosexual men to marry but not two homosexual men. No one can receive state benefits attributed via marriage by marrying anyone they choose. Adults are not allowed to marry 12 year olds, nor are they permitted to marry more than one person. These laws apply across the board. Please explain your logic concerning the 14th Amendment. I ask Pro to supply his case studies for the two court cases. Why do they lay the ground work? Please support this contention. The US government does not define marriage, and I see no reason why it should. The government is in no position to define an institution bound mainly in religious lore. Does the US definition override the definition offered in Christian mythos? By what authority? The US does provide some legal benefits to married couples, but two single individuals cohabitating, of any race, creed, sex, etc, do not get these benefits. Are single people being discriminated against? No, and the reason is that the state only has to be consistent in its application of the law. The state cannot make one set of rules pertaining to men and another pertaining to women and the legal benefits of marriage are applied across the board equally; men, women, black, white, Christian, Muslim, or otherwise. The state is under no requirement to recognize various facets of each person's marriage rules, secular or religious. By recognizing one type of union, the state is under no obligation to recognize all others. I get no legal recognition for my best friend union anymore than I had legal recognition of my roommate union in college. I submit that if marriage can be defined absent the cultural background associated with the term marriage, then I can see no constitutionally permissible means to prevent polygamy, incestuous marriages, roommate union, best friend union, etc. The best position my opponent can attack this from is by stating the distinction of one man/one woman is arbitrary (hint, hint). But I will not do the work for him. At this point the resolution cannot be maintained.