Gay Marriage

Reasons gay marriage no matter where one lives, one should not be able to marry the same gender (1)The institution of marriage has traditionally been defined as between a man and a woman. In the Oct. 15, 1971 decision Baker v. Nelson , the Supreme Court of Minnesota found that "The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family.Soucre for(1) Bruce Peterson, JD, Majority Opinion, Baker v. Nelson, www.marriagelawfoundation.org, Oct. 15, 1971(2)Marriage is already threatened with high divorce rates (between 40% and 50%) and with 40.6% of babies being born to unmarried mothersin 2008. Allowing same-sex couples to marry would further weaken the institution.Source for (2) W. Bradford Wilcox and Elizabeth Marquardt, "The State of Our Unions: Marriage in America 2009," www.stateofourunions.org, Dec. 2009 Brady E. Hamilton, PhD, Joyce A. Martin, MPH, and Stephanie J. Ventura, MA, "Births: Preliminary Date for 2008," National Vital Statistics Reports, Apr. 6, 2010 Gay marriage undermines family values because it undermines the whole concept of marriage, which should be between a man and a woman. Most religions see homosexuality as morally wrong. Opposition to gay marriage based on religious conviction is entirely justified. Gay marriages confuse gender roles for children. Children who are adopted need a mother and a father, not two parents of the same gender, even if married. One of the main historical principles behind marriage is that a man and a woman commit to each other so that they can have children together, but a gay couple cannot procreate. Legalizing gay marriage further undermines the family values which hold society together and it encourages a gay lifestyle, which has been shown to be detrimental to people, with gay people having higher incidents of mental illness, suicide rates, problems with addiction etc. Same-Sex "Marriage" Is Not a Civil Right: At this important moment in the U.S. debate over same-sex "marriage" and the likelihood of a long campaign to try to add a marriage amendment to the Constitution, it is important to evaluate the grounds of the arguments. In particular, we need to be clear about what constitutes a civil right. It is certainly true that the contention over marriage is about civil law. Marriage law has long been a state matter, and in the United States that has meant, literally, a state rather than a federal matter. In any case, the law has until now taken for granted that marriage is an institutional bond between a man and a woman. Moreover, marriage is something people of all faiths and no faith engage in. Churches, synagogues, and mosques may bless marriages but they do not create the institution. In that sense the question of marriage is not first of all a religious matter in the sense in which most people use the word "religion." However, to insist that the question of marriage is a matter of civil law and not first of all a religious matter does not take us very far. After all, the argument is about what government ought to do about keeping or changing the legal definition of marriage. The debate is not between husbands and wives within the bond of traditional marriage—like a court case over divorce and child custody. No, this debate is about whether the law that now defines marriage is itself good or bad, right or wrong. And to join that debate one must appeal, by moral argument, to grounds that transcend the law as it now exists. In that regard, the question of marriage is not about a civil right at all. It is about the nature of reality and interpretations of reality that precede the law. Those who now argue that same-sex couples should be included, as a matter of civil right, within the legal definition of marriage are appealing to the constitutional principles of equal protection and equal treatment. But this is entirely inappropriate for making the case for same-sex "marriage." To argue that the Constitution guarantees equal treatment to all citizens, both men and women, does not say anything about what constitutes marriage, or a family, or a business enterprise, or a university, or a friendship. An appeal for equal treatment would certainly not lead a court to require that a small business enterprise be called a marriage just because two business partners prefer to think of their business that way. Nor would equal treatment of citizens before the law require a court to conclude that those of us who pray before the start of auto races should be allowed to redefine our auto clubs as churches.The simple fact is that the civil right of equal treatment cannot constitute social reality by declaration. Civil rights protections function simply to assure every citizen equal treatment under the law depending on what the material dispute in law is all about. Law that is just must begin by properly recognizing and distinguishing identities and differences in reality in order to be able to give each its legal due.