Only Natural marriage should be recognized in the U.S.

Civil marriage and the purpose of it: Procreation and rearing of children is a biologically driven act that happens in nature regardless of state intrusion. What happens after procreation and during the child development process is where the state plays a role. Just in case; a couple naturally procreates either by accident or by choice without legal and social support, The state uses the institution of marriage ,which is the name and meaning, as an insurance policy. There are two approaches that are intertwined with each other in which the state attempts to maximize this state interests in children involving the structure and stability of families: The Responsible Procreation Theory One way is through the responsible procreation theory which involves establishing family stablity within heterosexual relationships. Family stability is about how many transitions in the environment the child may experience during the child development process. The state uses the idea of Marriage to encourage couples to procreate and/or rear their children in a stable environment that is best situated to raise children (i.e. Civil marriage licence). There is empirical evidence that supports the responsible procreation theory. In terms of the selection process, Studies show that people, who cohabit, compared to those who don't, have less traditional ideals or views of marriage. Then, according to other studies, they would not only be more likely to cohabit but more likely to divorce from prior cohabitation. This means whether the cause of the good child outcomes from couples is based on the idea of traditional marriage that people believe in or the physical experience of marriage, it does not matter. It would still be warranted for the state to use and promote a traditonal notion of marriage to ensure a stable home. Just go to this website http://www.smartmarriages.com......... Or google "Hewitt trial marriage": www.melbourneinstitute.com/.../cp/Hewitt_Trial_Marriage.pdf The Optimal partnership theory Another approach is through the optimal partnership theory which involves family structure. Family structure is about how and who the child is being raised with during the child development process. The state uses marriage to promote the ideal partnership between two biological married parents. There is also empirical evidence supporting the optimal partnership theory. Almost Every study demonstrates that children from two biological parents fare better in every category of social and psychological measurement. They are less likely to be poor, to exhibit behavioral problems, to struggle in school etc. than children in any other living arrangement. Here is an institute that mention the studies: http://www.urban.org...... Apart from marriage, there is also a body of law that assists in the determination of parental status, then provides for legal actions to establish support obligations and then government agencies stringently enforce those obligations. With marriage, the narrative is different, but the aims clear. The husband of the child's mother is considered the father of the child and is presumed to adequately support the child. With only rare exceptions, his paternity cannot be challenged and not by any third party. With the automatic parental status come enforceable responsibilities and the spouses cannot abandon one another or their children without some formal decree and even then, the support obligations that began with marriage continue, between the spouses for a time and for the child until adulthood. THE AFFIRMATION OF THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND Responsible procreation and Optimal partnership theory has been deemed to be not only an actual state interest but the most compelling of ALL compelling state interests by the U.S. supreme court several times: In Murphy v. Ramsey (1885) the U.S. Supreme Court stated: "[C]ertainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to rank as one of the coordinate state of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one MAN and one WOMAN in the holy state of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of the reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement." SKINNER V. OKLAHOMA 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110 (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." REDEFINING MARRIAGE INTERFERES WITH THIS PURPOSE If the state were to call same sex unions a marriage in conjunction with opposite sex couples, the law would publicly declare that, from now on, Marriage can be understood apart from responsible procreation, natural parenthood, and connecting children to their own mothers and fathers. Since the well-being of children would no longer be a component of the concept of marriage, the social stigma within choices (like divorce, cohabitation, fatherlessness etc.), which serves as a natural deterrent for couples to disdain from, would decay and eventually be eliminated. This is because marriage ends up ONLY becoming a matter of choice between consenting adults who want to express their love a certain way. As a result, heterosexuals, from FUTURE generations, would most likely formulate those choices that have the potential to harm their own family and society in general. Thus, the state would no longer be able to encourage incoming generations of heterosexuals to create stable environments where the nuclear family could be intact during the child development process. PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES "Gay Marriages Will Destroy Marriage" Not only would the state no longer be able to encourage incoming generations of heterosexuals to create stable environments, as I previously explained, but it could end up discouraging them as well. If the traditional notion of marriage, which is defined as banning gay marriage by gay marriage advocates, continues to be compared or labeled as a form of slavery/bigotry akin to racism/homophobia and the state enforces this, then the likely hood of the next generation holding and practicing this idea of marriage in the future would be almost impossible. So if my opponent agrees that the natural view of marriage will be viewed as a form of bigotry which will discourage people from holding and practicing that idea to the fullest, then CON would have to accept that heterosexuals will eventually cohabitate and/or divorce much more down the road as a logical consequence. Remember, the studies very clearly show that people, who cohabit, compared to those who don't, have less traditional ideals or views of marriage. Then, according to other studies, they would not only be more likely to cohabit but more likely to divorce from prior cohabitation. The problems with redefining marriage also arise in same-sex divorce and parental laws. Just as there are a set of entry conditions for marriage there would be a set of exit provisions as well. Douglas Allen can better discuss the potential impact of same sex divorce on straight relationships and parental consent laws in his book called "An economic assessment of same-sex marriage laws". Just go to this website and read p. 959-964 : http://www.law.harvard.edu...