Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: yes

WARNING: Incoming facts."The analogy doesn't work because you could have dirty run down water fountains reserved strictly for one group and the nice clean ones for another group."Here you claim that segregation is unconstitutional because facilities were of a lesser quality for blacks. Your implication is that were facilities absolutely equal in all respects, this would be legal. Therefore you say that since marriage and civil unions afford the same rights (which they don't even come close to doing which I have told you before, but which is irrelevant to the point) that this is also legal. Unfortunately for you your US history seems to be a bit rusty. The doctrine of separate but equal, was established in the Supreme Court case Plessy v. Ferguson. The Supreme Court ruled that segregation was constitutional. Now in 1954 the Supreme Court made a new decision on segregation in the case Brown v. Board of Education. The constitutional basis of the case was the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment. The Supreme Court decided that the quality of the black and white schools does not change the fact that separate is inherently not equal. A few quotes from the decision:"Segregation of white and Negro children in the public schools of a State solely on the basis of race, pursuant to state laws permitting or requiring such segregation, denies to Negro children the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment -- even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors of white and Negro schools may be equal.""Here, unlike Sweatt v. Painter, there are findings below that the Negro and white schools involved have been equalized, or are being equalized, with respect to buildings, curricula, qualifications and salaries of teachers, and other "tangible" factors.""To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone."So as you can see segregation would be unconstitutional regardless of the relative qualities of the things being segregated. Therefore my analogy works perfectly. Even if civil unions and marriages granted the exact same rights, which they don't, making gays get a different form of marriage "generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone." Consequently it is unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for homosexual unions to be given a different moniker.And if I had my druthers I would prefer states only issue civil unions to all couples and no marriage licenses because marriage has religious connotations. But barring that gays must be allowed to get married as well."(I know this is difficult for you to grasp but) since we have separation of church and state, the supreme court doesn't have a say in what word churches use."I never made this assertion or an assertion with this as a logical conclusion. Enjoy your red herring. It tastes too fishy for me.