Resolved: The United States federal government should require all states to legalize gay marriage.

My opponent argues that even though the marriage is not a right per se, it is implied in the Declaration of Independence. There are a few problems with this: First, the Declaration is not a legally binding document but rather a list of philosophical justifications for the existence of an American regime separate from the British Crown. The US government is legitimately bound by the Constitution because it was ratified by the founding powers of the American order.Okay, never said any like that. Second, my opponent does not correctly interpret the meaning of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These rights derive from negative rights which exist via human nature. Marriage is an accidental privilege, There is a lot of things that are 'accidental privileges'. Do we not have the right to read or to watch a good movie? We don't have that right.not an essential right. If the conception that opponent holds is true then the government is philosophically and legally bound to provide access to all material possessions and all access to mental cultivation. For example, riding bikes make me happy (pursuit of happiness) however I am unable to afford a bike right now. Strawman? No one is denying you anything. This existential barrier to the exercise of my rights must be demolished according to the conception of my opponent. However logically this leads to certain problems because that compels coercive action against free individuals in an effort to mitigate the existential barrier. In other words, in order for me to get a bike the government must take 1 bike from someone who has 2 bikes.Another strawman? In terms of marriage, if it is a right then society must be coerced against (i.e. their taxes must be used in order to equalize the benefits of marriage).Please. We have issues if we are against some marriage because it costs too much. Third, my opponent’s argument is incoherent. The tagline of his argument is that homosexuals have rights too, then he says that he isn’t actually referring to rights, I was really. I just said that the DOI has no effect on the subject.and then goes on to say that denying homosexuals marriage is a violation of their rights. It is either that it is not a right, or it is a right – it can’t be both. If it is a right then my opponent has the burden to prove exactly where in the Constitution this right exists.I played video games yesterday. Is that a right? Can Uncle Sam they take that away? How about beer? Can someone drink beer, assuming they are of age? Some things are de facto rights and are also not listed in the valid places. My advocacy isn’t to ban it, but rather that the federal government cannot force states to recognize it. Refer to my case below for reasoning. It is a pretty sucky law if you just ban it for the lulz. My opponent argues that it’s fundamentally a Christian thing and that’s why people object. This argument proves nothing and is irrelevant. All ideologies are based on preexisting biases, In agreement. However some of the Christians try not to be biased. Not important.and gay marriage is based on a progressive ideology which seeks a revisionist interpretation of the founding, i.e. Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. Being a “Christian thing” does not make it subject to immediate dismissal from public policy discourse, unless it can be proven as to why Christian mentality directly contradicts founding principle or the order which is inherent in the American regime. I will concede this as it is not important to the debate. Con Case C1: Constitutionality – the 10th Amendment “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This is a straightforward argument: (1) there is no explicit right for people to marry nor a specific power delegated to the federal government determining criterion or marriage, (2) since it is not a delegated power, that power is de facto given to the states for determination, (3) lastly the resolution mandates federal enforcement over state power. (4) as such the resolution is unconstitutional and as a result inconsistent with the American order. [1] I am running out of time so I have to leave this for next time.