Marriage is a human/civil right. There is no "fundamental" right to marriage, no matter what any judge or court rules. Like education and healthcare, someone had to invent it in order for it to exist and have meaning. Aye, those who proclaim a "right" to marriage summarily dismiss the social and cultural context that created what they claim as a "right" in the first place.
The Constitution does not address marriage. Thus the right to define statutory marriage and regulate marriage belongs to the states via the 10th Amendment. Furthermore, the right of religion to define marriage is protected by the Establishment Clause.
The brief of the Attorney General of North Dakota to the Supreme Court of the United States points out that same-sex marriage is based on two fundamentally flawed propositions: "First, that there is a fundamental right to marry someone of the same sex. Second, that sexual orientation is a class meriting heightened scrutiny. Both of these propositions have been rejected by the Supreme Court and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals."1
Homosexuals do not have the same marriage rights as heterosexuals. False. Rights belong to individuals, not couples. Homosexual individuals have the same marriage rights as heterosexuals. It would be wrong to deprive a citizen of the same rights of marriage on the basis of his/her sexual orientation or practice. Yet no law actually does this.
The 14th Amendment requires recognition of same-sex marriage. False. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the federal government or any state from "deny[ing] to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Again, no law deprives homosexuals the rights of marriage that are granted to heterosexuals. Rights belong to individuals, not couples, and the Fourteenth Amendment specifically addresses the protection of persons, not couples.
Homosexuals are an oppressed minority. False. Homosexuals are actually a favored group, protected by "sexual orientation" laws and catered to by marketers as a desired demographic. And legal jurisdictions are already imposing fines and "re-education" punishments on people who refuse to perform services for same-sex events. See Violations of Religious Liberty re Marriage.
Gender makes no difference in the unity of two people. False. Each human being is the product of his biological father and his biological mother. Recognizing same-sex marriage deprives some people of their intrinsic right to have and be raised by a father and a mother.
The legal legitimization of same-sex marriage affects your status as a father or a mother. Courts are already ruling that "de facto" parents "perform a share of care-taking functions at least as great as the legal parent."2 Affirming that a male partner in a same-sex marriage is equivalent to the natural relationship of a mother in "care-taking function" is not only preposterous. It marks a monumental shift in the posture of the law toward the capability of parents within marriage and therefore the status of both mother and father relevant to their child.3
But, love! Marriage isn't about love. I love my fiancée. I love my mother, I love my children. I love you as a human being. I love pizza. But only one of these relationships is appropriate for marriage.
If marriage is about "love," then billions of people in the history of the world who thought they were married were not. Most marriages have been arranged. Love may percolate later, but only as a result of marriage, not the reason for it.4
Further, if "love" were the sine qua non of marriage, no "for better or for worse" promises would be needed at the altar. Vows aren't meant to sustain love; they are meant to sustain the union when love wanes. A pledge keeps a family intact not for love, but for the sake of children.5
Furthermore, the supporters of same-sex marriage show exactly what they think of marriage when they tolerate no-fault divorce and infidelity. The push for same-sex marriage isn't about "love" or "equality" any more than it is about gratifying egos, upsetting the social order and generating income for lawyers and other shysters.
The legalization of same-sex-marriage has no bearing on the practice of traditional marriage. False.
First, by legalizing same-sex marriage, the state becomes the official advocate of same-sex marriage. Thus, in every public forum where marriage rights extend to same-sex couples, the state will expect you to comply. Local judges will be called upon to conduct the new civil ceremony. Any restraints within the public schools to advocate for sexual culture will be removed fully. In the private sphere, owners of rental properties must agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants. Businesses offering wedding services will be forced to cater same-sex ceremonies. These sorts of things are already happening.6
Second, the redistribution of marriage rights modifies your marriage as a natural entity afforded legal recognition. Marriage is a naturally occurring relationship. The state does not create marriage but is to create complimentary environments in which martial life is legally recognized and protected. Redefining marriage by legal fiat changes this point of reference. It shifts the legal posture of the state from recognizing a preexisting institution to creating the institution after its own image and likeness. The state becomes the originator of your marriage.7,8
The state should have no interest in marriage. False. There is a purpose of the state’s interest in marriage, and same-sex marriage defeats that purpose. Government bestows benefits on families with children to provide the normal and stable conditions for the birth and upbringing of those children. Same-sex marriage is not aimed at providing such conditions. Its chief purpose is the personal gratification of two individuals whose relationship is inherently barren.9
Same-sex marriage will obfuscate the state’s interests in all marriages. As Justice O'Connor said in her concurring opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, "preserving the traditional institution of marriage" is a "legitimate state interest."10 Such interests are predicated mainly in the fact that heterosexual couples can produce children which facilitates social order and the longevity of the state. State interest in marriage extends to the well-being of a child, for should a family fail to protect a child that responsibly can fall to the state. However, if marriage is to have any social value the social meaning of marriage must remain apparent and protected. For, "the contribution of family life to the conditions that develop and sustain long-term personal fulfillment and autonomy depends (among many other important factors) upon maintaining the family as a legally defined and structurally significant entity."11 Anything less than preserving the traditional definition of marriage creates an imprecise relationship between the state and your marriage.12