I've been wondering for years why those so opposed to gay marriage claim
"legalizing" it will somehow destroy "straight" marriage, but I've never
seen the rationale.

This, a rather lengthy tome, attempts to provide one but it falls short
in every way it tries. It is from protectmarriage.com, one of the more
prominent groups that tried to defend Prop 8 in California. It basically
says only a marriage between a man and a woman will result in children
and, moreover, children that are properly reared.

That's just bull****, I think, and the reason why the entire argument
against gay marriage falls apart.



Why Marriage Matters

Pre-dating any form of government, marriage has been regarded over the
ages and across cultures as the fundamental unit of society.

Moreover, due to the innate biological differences between men and women
and the unique procreative capacity of an opposite-sex union, marriage
is, and always has been, understood in civilized society as only between
a man and a woman.

No other purpose of marriage can plausibly explain the institution’s
existence, let alone its ubiquity. Indeed, if human beings reproduced
independently and human offspring was self-sufficient, would any culture
have developed an institution anything like what we know as marriage?”i

California has a vital interest in responsible procreation and
childrearing. Because only relationships between men and women can
produce children, and children are most likely to thrive when raised by
the father and mother who brought them into this world, opposite-sex
relationships have the potential to further—or harm—this vital interest
in a way that other types of relationships do not. Therefore,
government has distinguished opposite-sex couples and steered
procreative unions into marriage. As American jurisprudence has long
recognized, marriage is the foundation of family and society, without
which there would be neither civilization nor progress.ii Today,
Californians and others must continue to protect and preserve
traditional marriage to sustain American culture as we know it.

The creation, nurture, and socialization of the next generation is
mainly accomplished through the family unit. Traditional marriage is
intended to provide to every child both a mother and father who are
accountable to each other, their children, and the common good. By
identifying children with their parents, the social system powerfully
motivates individuals to settle into an enduring procreative union and
take care of the ensuing offspring.iii

While it is true that some opposite-sex couples cannot, or choose not
to, have children; throughout history, societies have chosen to forego
the ultimately futile attempt to police fertility and childbearing
intentions and have relied instead on the commonsense presumption that
marital relationships between men and women are, in general, capable of
procreation.

At the same time, societies have never required that would-be spouses
actually have or form “satisfying relationships” and “deep emotional
bonds and strong commitments,” which are the reasons that same-sex
marriage proponents often give for equal recognition of their unions.

While the government has little interest in two consenting adults who
share a deep bond, it has a critical interest in a union that is capable
of producing children. Just as government protects other fundamental
concepts of ordered liberty, it has necessarily protected marriage to
ensure that it exists to conceive and nurture healthy children that will
sustain civilization.

Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would have to alter the
institution. As an initial matter, such a redefinition would eliminate
California’s ability to provide special recognition and support to those
relationships that uniquely further the vital interests that marriage
has always served.

But more profoundly, same-sex marriage would further undercut the idea
that procreation is intrinsically connected to marriage. It would
undermine the idea that children need both a mother and a father,
further weakening the societal norm that men should take responsibility
for the children they beget. And, same-sex marriage would likely corrode
marital norms of permanence, monogamy, and fidelity.

Professor Andrew Cherlin of Johns Hopkins University, a same-sex
marriage supporter, identifies same-sex marriage as “the most recent
development in the deinstitutionalization of marriage.” He further
states that if deinstitutionalization continues, the number of people
who ever marry could fall further, and due to high levels of
out-of-wedlock childbirth, cohabitation, and divorce, people will spend
less of their lives in intact marriages than in the past.iv

Other societies have experienced this firsthand. After the Netherlands
became the first country to legalize same-sex marriage in 2001, rates of
out-of-wedlock childbirth, cohabitation and divorce were all exacerbated
in the aftermath of redefining marriage.v

In summary, California has a vital interest in responsible procreation
and childrearing. Because only relationships between men and women can
produce children, and children are most likely to thrive when raised by
the father and mother who brought them into this world, opposite-sex
relationships have the potential to further—or harm—this vital interest
in a way that other types of relationships do not. Therefore, government
has distinguished opposite-sex couples and steered procreative unions
into marriage. As American jurisprudence has long recognized, marriage
is the foundation of family and society, without which there would be
neither civilization nor progress.vi

Today, Californians and others must continue to protect and preserve
traditional marriage to sustain American culture as we know it.



i Robert P. George, et al., What is Marriage? at 43, forthcoming in
HARV. J. L. & PUB. POL’Y (Draft, Sept. 15, 2010), available at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1677717.

iiMaynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 211 (1888); see also Williams v. North
Carolina, 317 U.S.

iiiThe Meaning & Significance of Marriage in Contemporary Society 7-8,
in CONTEMPORARY MARRIAGE: COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES ON A CHANGING
INSTITUTION (Kingsley Davis, ed. 1985) (ER430-31).

ivAndrew J. Cherlin, The Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage, 66
J.MARRIAGE & FAM. 848, 848, 850 (2004) (ER407).

vStatistics Netherlands, Marriages 1950-2008 (ER970); Statistics
Netherlands, Unmarried Couples With Children 1995-2009 (ER981);
Statistics Netherlands, Total Single Parent Households, 1995-2009 (ER978).52

viMaynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 211 (1888); see also Williams v. North
Carolina, 317 U.S.


http://tinyurl.com/obpcbsy