I can convince you to be against Same-Sex marriage

THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE The U.S. Supreme Court has always defined marriage to be between a man and a woman for the continuation of society and never did they say that the fundamental right to marry included same sex marriage. In fact, the Supreme Court rejected the existence of such definitions or rights in the past and said there is no fundamental right to gay marriage . After the Loving decision, The U.S. Supreme Court in Baker v. Nelson in 1972 regarding the issue of Same sex marriage endorsed a Minnesota supreme court decision. There are also plenty of state and federal courts that mention Baker as a U.S. SCOTUS ruling [1]. Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit (2006) While Baker did not appear in the court's Fourteenth Amendment analysis, the court's opinion did note in its concluding passage: Indeed, in Baker v. Nelson, when faced with a Fourteenth Amendment challenge to a decision by the Supreme Court of Minnesota denying a marriage license to a same-sex couple, the United States Supreme Court dismissed "for want of a substantial federal question." There is good reason for this restraint. Wilson v. Ake, U.S. District Court (2005) "The Supreme Court has not explicitly or implicitly overturned its holding in Baker or provided the lower courts, including this Court, with any reason to believe that the holding is invalid today." The case will show you that the same court in Loving v Virginia not only distinguished same sex marriage from interracial marriage, but established it as a right that does not exist under the constitution and never did. They also rejected and refuted many of the same arguments gay activists make today : "The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis. Skinner V. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 1113, 86 L.Ed. 1655, 1660 (1942), which invalidated Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act on equal protection grounds, stated in part: "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for RESTRUCTURING it by judicial LEGISLATION." As you can see, Marriage wouldn't be "fundamental" to the "existence" and "survival" of humanity if it was completely delinked from procreation or had nothing to do with reproductive potential. Marriage is the regulation of procreation and rearing of children. This has been deemed the most compelling of ALL compelling state interests by the U.S. supreme court several more times and let me explain precisely why this is the case WHAT ABOUT INFERTILE COUPLES? The Fundamental right to marry: Since Marriage between a man and a woman has been held to be a fundamental right, a law excluding infertile heterosexual couples would be constitutionally unenforceable. The state couldn't survive strict scrutiny because it would be overinclusive and not narrowly tailored. However, there is a second and most important reason why they would allow the infertile to marry along with any other scenario dealing with heterosexual couples. Marriage: As I explained before, Our marriage laws are there to shape culture and culture shapes conduct. Allowing infertile heterosexuals to marry does not attempt to take away the law's ability to recruit and influence the culture of heterosexuals who are "fertile" to make sure they create and/or raise their offspring's in a stable environment. Moreover, the state cannot promote responsible procreation and rearing of children without referencing and acknowledging the traditional definition of marriage because it's the only union that can perform this particular action. Therefore, infertile couples (or ANY other heterosexual scenario) do not change the definition and ,thus, don't challenge the intention of the marriage institution. This is because the definition of marriage (the means) and the purpose of it (the ends) are synonymous. In conclusion, Gay marriage is not a civil right because the purpose of civil marriage involves the procreation and rearing of children. Its something that only a man and woman can do. This is why civil marriage is a civil human right. In addition, since this is what civil marriage "is", it logically follows that gay marriage cannot be an equal right as well. Let me explain how and why: EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE Since civil marriage has always been defined between one man and one woman for responsible procreation and rearing of children, this is not about whether a law banning same sex marriage is constitutional or unconstitutional. The legal issue that is before us is whether traditional marriage laws are based on invidious, arbitrary, discrimination. Discrimination: " The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights. Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right." [2] 1. Sex Equality Bans on interracial marriage were about the segregation of protected classes ,which has been deemed in the Brown decision to be another form of discrimination. When it comes to the Sexes, The Supreme Court has never ruled integration to be a form of discrimination. Thus, there is no discrimination between the sexes because men and woman can equally marry someone of the opposite sex. 2. Sexual Orientation Equality Traditional marriage laws do not violate the equal protection clause because providing a separate institution like civil unions to same sex couples has been deemed constitutional on basis of sex (with some conditions of course). For example, We have separate but equal situations for men and women that permeate our country ranging from restrooms, the military, prisons, sport teams, and even separate but equal public schools. We have this even though women are a minority that historically have been discriminated against. In a case called Vorcheimer v. Philadelphia school District, the Supreme Court ruled, that "Separate" is essentially "Equal". As long as each gender equally has a choice in going to both schools for both genders and that, interests in creating separateness based on the biological differences grounded in sex and GENDER are a legitimate state interests.[3] In United States v. Virginia , the court agreed with this rationale as well: "Had Virginia made a genuine effort to devote comparable public resources to a facility for women, and followed through on such a plan, it might well have avoided an equal protection violation.""it is not the 'exclusion of women' that violates the Equal Protection Clause, but the maintenance of an all-men school without providing any -- much less a comparable -- institution for women... It would be a sufficient remedy, I think, if the two institutions offered the same quality of education and were of the same overall caliber." Obviously, this is deemed constitutional because there is a fundamental difference between race and sex. This is why we no longer have bans on interracial marriage or have Jim Crow laws but still have and always accepted apartheid for the sexes and define marriage between one man and one woman.