Gay Marriage Should Be Legal in the United States

My opponent's position, while interesting, doesn't actually fall under the terms of the debate. We are not figuring out what the best way to preserve equality is - we are arguing about whether or not a specific set of laws is unconstitutional and should be changed. I believe part of his position stems from a misunderstanding of the strict scrutiny standard. The SS standard does not apply to the institution of marriage itself, but rather the laws that govern regulations on that institution. So instead of asking whether or not a law is compellingly related to marriage, one must ask what the desired end is to be achieved by a certain set of laws, and whether or not that end is compelling. My opponent has mistaken the negation of he resolution as "Marriage should not be legal in the United States." Obviously, the proper negation of the resolution is "Gay marriage should not be legal in the United States." Another small problem exists with my opponent's position... since the formal institution of marriage is not codified in federal law, it cannot be abolished at the federal level. Restrictions on the state-created institution can be made at the federal level, however. Plus, all laws concerning marital benefits, legality of church marriages, etc... would have to be changed at the federal level... In short, my opponent's position is not salient, as it is ridiculously unfeasible. We may as well say that we will grant gay marriage, but on if it takes place on the third Tuesday after the second vernal equinox that is not in a leap year, but only if it is also a new moon. So as far as the resolution is concerned, my opponent has conceded ("My opponent is right, not allowing gay marriage is flawed."). ************************************************************* However, my opponent does bring up a couple interesting points... >> "But just legalizing gay marriage still excludes people. What of the trans gender society? What of people who are not born with a discernible genders? Or the people who have traits from multiple genders?" The correction of law to allow gay marriage would be necessarily done as a freedom to choose one's partner, regardless of gender. The trans- and ambiguously gendered would not be ostracized at all. In fact, a genderless selection pool would include them to a much greater extent. >> "Dismantling legal marriage allows for an even playing field for all." So does allowing partner selection that has nothing to do with gender... >> "The Federal Government SHOULD NOT be allowed to mandate what a church ritual must contain." Good call. But marriage the religious rite and marriage the legal institution are two different things. >> "And to go back to my analogy, the gays don't have to join my club, they can make their own if they feel like it." True, but the problem remains that members of your club get fancy benefits from the government - benefits people can't get if they make their own club. It's like if Mom only visits the no-girls-allowed clubhouse with cookies and refuses to give cookies to any other clubhouse.... ****************************************************** In a closing note... Yraelz - you know perfectly well what the debate is about... stop beating around the bush.