Marriage should not be redefined or gay marriage should be illegal

In this debate, make sure you include in your argument the following: 1. Show how there is a right to same sex marriage and how traditional marriage laws violate the equal protection clause. 2. Show how having gay marriage is more beneficial then banning it. 3. Show that gay marriage would benefit state interests. Also, you can cut and paste information from other debates you have been in to save your time, if you want. What is CIVIL marriage and the purpose of it: "Sexual unions of male and female are unique: they alone can make new life, and when they do so will either connect (or disconnect) children from mothers and fathers [ to form a family unit]. It is this biological reality that has given rise to the marriage relationship, not just in America, but across all cultural, ethnic, religious and tribal lines throughout recorded history. This global consensus on marriage formed the foundation of our common law, animating the laws governing marriage not only in California, but throughout the United States. The vast majority of children are conceived through acts of sexual passion; marriage provides a means to help society regulate this [biologically driven sexual act] so that children do not get hurt." Our marriage laws regulate opposite-sex relationships by establishing a baseline definition of who is married (man and woman) and the purpose of marriage (responsible procreation and rearing of children). As a by-product, it provides a shared framework from which concepts such as out-of-wedlock pregnancies, adultery, remarriage, step parenting, divorce, etc. can be understood. Moreover, We come to know how these choices and situations can be detrimental for kids or families as a result. Then, the law steps in to reinforce that meaning of marriage to simulate a part of reality for people. Although, as a secondary effect, marriage does provide incentives and disincentives; the idea of marriage and the other social institutions that are associated with it do not require people to use them. Primarily, it is the very existence and understanding of these social institutions, the social exchange, and the government's reinforcement of these social rituals that combine to make it seem reasonable and even natural for people to apply these concepts. "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. " References: Page 3,4,5,6,7 http://nomblog.com............... In conclusion, Procreation and rearing of children is a biologically driven or self-evident act and people will do it either by choice or on accident. What happens after procreation and during the child development process is where the state steps in to establish family stability (Although, as a secondary effect, family structure does still play a role as well). The state uses the institution of marriage, primarily, as an insurance policy, just in case; a couple naturally procreates either by accident or by choice without legal and social support. The name and meaning of Marriage is there to encourage couples to procreate and/or rear their children in a stable environment that is best situated to raise children simply by obtaining a marriage license. In addition, there is empirical evidence that supports the responsible procreation theory. 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 its warranted for the state to continue using the traditional notion of marriage to achieve that purpose. Just go to this website http://www.smartmarriages.com............... Or google "Hewitt trial marriage": www.melbourneinstitute.com/.../cp/Hewitt_Trial_Marriage.pdf