Gay marriage should be legal in the United States

"My opponent’s quote shows that marriage is an issue for the states to handle, not the federal government. Because the resolution calls for gay marriage to be legal in the United States, and legal in the United States has been accepted to mean federal law, my opponent has himself acknowledged that it is not within the power of the United States to put the resolution into effect. He also says that “While the federal government should have no say in the gay marriage issue, making the federal government unable to ban gay marriage itself unless through an amendment to the constitution.” The federal government is unable to ban gay marriage, likewise, it is not able to legalize it."My opponent makes the claim here that something can be neither legal and illegal, but he fails to provide evidence or reasoning for this claim. I claim that something is legal until it is made illegal. Since the federal government does not ban gay marriage, gay marriage is thus legal in the United States; the government does not have to write up a law for everything to say that it is legal when it already is; the government does, however, have to do this to make something illegal. My opponent now has the responsibility to not only refute my claim, but he also must provide reasoning or evidence for his claim gay marriage can be neither legal or illegal on the federal level. "I will begin this round by pointing out that my opponent provides no evidence for his assertion that gay marriage is a civil right. Because there is no evidence for the claim, it will not be accepted as true."Allow me to elaborate further then. From the Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia:"Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival." [1]Now, I shall refer to my opponent's definition of marriage that I accepted at the beginning of the debate: "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife, and in some jurisdictions, between two persons of the same sex, usually entailing legal obligations of each person to the other." Under this definition, gay marriage certainly could be considered a civil right, just as marriage already is, under certain jurisdictions. As long as gay marriage is included in the definition of marriage, it is a civil right. I shall argue that gay marriage should be included in the definition of marriage, but first, I shall address another one of Con's points."Thirdly, Section 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act states: “No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship” [1].This law means that it is up to each state to determine how it wishes to define marriage, and states do not have to accept the same sex marriages of other states."The Defense of Marriage Act has not been tested for constitutionality in the United States Supreme Court, and thus, it remains law. This debate, however, is not a question of whether or not gay marriage can be legal in the United States, but rather, whether or not it should be legal. Should was already defined as "used to express obligation or duty." In this use of the word, can is defined as "be able to." [2] The United States does have the obligation or duty to enforce its laws; this does not mean that the states have the obligation to define marriage as only between a man or a woman. According to my understanding of it, the entirety of my opponent's response to my argument, which makes up most of his argument, hinges on the fact that states can define marriage as they wish, under a few restrictions, none of which includes the guarantee that the states have to define marriage to include gay marriage. Thus, the states do not have to provide the same benefits to same-sex couples as they do heterosexual couples, nor do they have to provide the right to marry to homosexual couples in the first place, because even though marriage is a civil right, as long as the definition of marriage does not include gay marriage, then gay marriage is not a civil right. Overall, his argument hinges on the fact that the states do not have to define marriage to include homosexual marriage. Con can correct me if I am mistaken with my understanding of his arguments. This means my only rational response to this argument would be to argue that gay marriage should be included in the definition of marriage. Now, there is little legal precedent or standing for this on a federal basis, and state basis varies, and thus, I will simply use reasoning and rational thinking as opposed to relying on legal documents, which my opponent and I have used throughout this debate. Nonetheless, if my argument, which is that gay marriage should be included in the definition of marriage, is successful, and my opponent's refutations are unsuccessful, then gay marriage should be legal in the United States, because marriage is a civil right that the states already provide for heterosexual couples.To begin my argument as to why gay marriage should be included in the definition of marriage, I shall say that marriage is not necessarily naturally between one man and one woman; in other words, my opponent has to provide reasoning for the claim that marriage should be between a man and a woman, just as I have to provide reasoning that marriage can include homosexual couples. Evidence for the notion that marriage may not just be between heterosexuals is shown throughout history. Same sex marriages have been tolerated in ancient Egypt, ancient Rome, and even a few examples in Middle Ages European secular law. [3]As for rational reasons to include gay marriage in the definition of marriage, some examples are: it would allow gay couples to receive the same benefits as heterosexual couples; it does not hurt society or anyone in particular; marriage is also a matter of love, and this allows homosexual couples another way to express their love; marriage would encourage family values amongst homosexual couples in the same way marriage encourages family values amongst heterosexual couples; it would encourage child adoption amongst homosexual couples, giving more children stable homes where the parents are in a social contract to stay together. This is the end of my argument for round three, and although I do have more to say and argue, I cannot fit in for space reasons, mainly because at this point I have one last thing I need to address, which is addressed below this paragraph. "Question: If gay marriage is a civil right, then is polygamy a civil right?" The question shall be ignored until my opponent provides reasoning as to why it is relevant to the debate. The debate is about whether or not gay marriage is legal. Although arguing gay marriage as a civil right may be necessary for my side of the debate, and arguing that it is not a civil right may be necessary for my opponent's side of the debate, arguing polygamy as a civil right or not a civil right is irrelevant as to whether gay marriage should be legal or illegal. I see the question by Con as an attempt to draw away from the main topic of the debate, and readers should take this in mind when determining the conduct of the two debaters. I am not at fault from drawing attention away from the debate in this instance because I am simply addressing a question asked of me as opposed to asking one myself. Likewise, my opponent shall not be at fault if he tries to explain why this question is relevant to the debate; if he fails to do this, however, this question should be a factor when determining his conduct in the debate. [1] http://tiny.cc... [2] http://tiny.cc...[3] http://tiny.cc...