Prop 8 is Constitutional

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. 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 [1]: "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. There are also plenty of state and federal courts that mention Baker as a U.S. SCOTUS ruling [2]. 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. Let me explain precisely why this is the case: The Purpose of CIVIL Marriage: The traditional view of marriage is based on the anatomical possibility or "natural teleology of the body" where only a man and a woman, and only two people, not three, can generate a child and raise the child through the natural complimentary element of both genders. Procreation and rearing of children is a biologically driven act that happens either by choice or by accident [3]. The state regulates this by encouraging procreation and child-rearing to take place within a marriage. This is done in order to make sure they do not procreate and rear children in an unstable environment if they end up producing a family either by choice or by accident . The Means to Achieve this Purpose: The state uses the traditional idea of marriage ,as a means to achieve this purpose, in order to encourage heterosexual couples to obtain a marriage license. Then, the state issues marriage licenses in order to reinforce this meaning of marriage and ,as a result, provide legal and social support for their relationships. There are two theories about the definition of marriage that potentially helps to achieve this purpose: A. The Responsible Procreation Theory The responsible procreation theory involves establishing family stablity where the state encourages heterosexual couples to procreate and/or rear their children in a environment that is best situated to raise children [4]. Family stability is about how many transitions in the environment the child may experience during the child development process. There is empirical evidence that supports this 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. [5] B. The Optimal partnership theory The optimal partnership theory involves establishing family structure where the state promotes the ideal partnership between two biological married parents. Family structure is about who the child is being raised with during the child development process. There is also empirical evidence supporting this 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 [6]. Therefore, it does not matter 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 would still be warranted for the state to use and promote a traditonal notion of marriage to ensure a stable home for children. EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE My argument, in a nutshell against gay marriage is this, where the possibility of natural children is nil in law, the meaning of marriage is nil. If marriage is allowed between members of the same sex, then the concept of marriage has been emptied of content except to ask whether the parties love each other. There would be no reason to have public recognition of marriage. Let me explain precisely how and why: 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 and natural parenthood. 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, would decay and its effect would basically 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. THE CLAIM THAT GAY MARRIAGE IS A CIVIL RIGHT 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 would end up discouraging them as well. If the court rules that traditional marriage laws are based on invidious, arbitrary, discrimination under the equal protection clause, then the likely hood of the next generation holding and practicing this idea of marriage in the future would be virtually impossible. Therefore, since same sex couples are fundamentally different, an important governmental distinction between the two relationships would be reasonable in order to continue advancing this interest. The state uses the traditional definition to encourage procreation and rearing of children to take place within a marriage to each generation while the state can encourage homosexuals to adopt and stay together with civil unions. JUSTICE is applied EQUALLY in each case. [1] http://www.cas.umt.edu... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.cdc.gov... [4] http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov... .....p.10,11 [5] http://eprints.qut.edu.au... ...... p.2 [6] http://www.urban.org... Read Gary Gates