[Snuffington]

My exact argument is that a Constitutional Amendment does not set marriage in stone because it would be reversible, just like the 18th was reversed, by a liberal Congress wishing to elevate the ability of same-sex couples to marry to the level of a constitutional right.

That is hardly your exact argument. Your argument previously was that marriage should be left for each state to define for itself, as if 50 different versions of something called "marriage" would have no special impact of American society.

As a caveat you challenged that an amendment, (as proposed by those who do not share your opinion) might be reversed.

Um... yes. It might. Not really much of a point in your favor when it comes to the issue in debate though.

[Luis Gonzalez]

My debate is simple.

What does the Constitution say?

The Constitution says that each individual State defines marriage.

There will not be 50 differing opinions because there are not 50 available combinations. There will simply be a combination of any number of States either recognizing same-sex marriages or not.

The rest then is left to Congress, as they define the general rules under which States can exempt themselves from the Full Faith and Credit Clause, when a conflict arises between a State which does not recognize same-sex marriages, and citizens married in a State that does.

A Republic, if we can keep it.