Mothers and fathers contribute different things to the lives of their offspring. Mothers, for example, tend to be more attuned to the moods and feelings of young children especially; fathers excel at discipline and at pushing children to give their best effort. On this topic, though, I think it can help to move beyond the sociological research and ask people: are you really comfortable asserting that a child suffers no misfortune by being motherless? Or by being fatherless? Of course there will always be children who grow up under sub-optimal circumstances, often for reasons beyond anyone’s control. That’s not a justification for cementing sub-optimal circumstances as a new norm.

The seismic and manufactured public opinion “shift” on same sex marriage in the past several of years is a glaring example of how coercive persuasion works. As people become increasingly fearful of expressing a heretofore innocuous understanding of marriage as a man-woman institution, they silence themselves and thereby fuel the opposing agenda. The threat of isolation — labeling, shunning, and firings — is a powerful motivator because human survival is tied to it.

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.¹

Instead of two parents being responsible for the children they conceive, an expectation that was held up by social norms and by the law, we now take it for granted that neither parent is necessarily responsible for their children. Men are now considered to be fulfilling their duties merely by paying court-ordered child support]. That's a pretty dramatic lowering of standards for ''fatherhood.''

By making domestic partnerships a matter of contract law, we can attack no-fault divorce. The law does not let you get out of any other kind of contract just because you don''t feel like being in it any more. Why do we tolerate this for marriage? At least by reinforcing that domestic partnership is a contract, we transform divorce into breach of contract.

We need to let go of DOMA, Prop 8, and our court losses. All of these rulings are travesties against democracy and representative government, but they are done and we need to move on. We need to shift focus to getting government out of marriage, and going on the counteroffensive against the forces of evil in our culture.

Government cannot comprehend marriage. It can only comprehend legalisms. Thus government cannot define marriage. It can recognize civil union, but civil union is not the same thing as marriage. The government can permit people to enter into civil union regardless of whether not they are actually married in the spirit of the universe. Thus government should be concerned only with the legal arrangement (contract) between two people, not what they do within their relationship.

Marriage is a public matter. It is not a private matter. The marriage vow is made in front of God and witnesses.

It is not just about the two people who marry. It isn't just about the children that will come into it. It affects the witnesses and the surrounding community. Married couples have responsibilities not just to each other and their children but to their families and their community.

If you believe in Jesus Christ, you have 32,000+ flavors of church to choose from. Or you can do what 31,999 of them did: Start your own to preach your own theology.

As for me, I don't believe in Jesus so I am not bound by what any particular church of said deity says. I will, however, consider what those churches offer. I particularly like the parts about God making humanity male and female, of God commanding them to be fruitful and multiplying, of God delegating particular roles to male and to female, etc. I'm particularly moved by the Theology of the Body (ever even heard of it, much less read it?). I'm far more impressed by what Christianity says about marriage than any argument I've heard for same-sex marriage.

Sex has two components: procreative and unitive.

Homosexual sex is not procreative, and I would argue that it is not unitive either. Penis-in-vagina sex results in the exchange of bodily fluids and risks on both parts. Many forms of homosexual sex do not do this.

I hold out hope that extramarital sexual activity will someday be treated with the same seriousness that we accord to alcohol consumption.

People with sexual or gender orientation or identity issues need love, not tolerance; counseling, not coddling; redemption, not accommodation.

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 caretaking 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 “caretaking 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.

Sexual activists seek to destroy the natural, gender-specific, differences between men and woman. The result is a hermaphroditic understanding of reality. Ironically, this view destroys diversity and contributes to a global movement to equalize and neutralize all things (religion, government, etc.) Unity (two people becoming one) and diversity (a husband and a wife) are held in perfect balance in traditional marriage.

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, and much more. If your traditional marriage touches these, or similar areas, you can expect it to be affected.

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.”³ 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.”⁴ Anything less than preserving the traditional definition of marriage creates an imprecise relationship between the state and your marriage.

Same-sex marriage defeats the purpose of the state’s interest in marriage. 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.

The state doesn’t care if the bride and groom love each other. There are no questions about a couple’s affections when granting a license. No proof of passion is required. Why? Because marriage isn’t about love. It’s about a commitment that is supposed to deliver stability for families. That’s what society is really interested in because that’s what ensures the continuation of a society.

Same-sex marriage reduces the worth of marriage. Redefining marriage to include people of the same sex is a legal endorsement of the fungibility of a man and woman in marriage, and of male and female in general. To set “any two persons” on a par with a man and a woman in marriage is to reduce the worth of their roles.⁵

Why do I think we have a very good chance of winning at the Supreme Court?

I'll refer your attention to the recent legal filings in North Dakota by the Governor and Attorney General and their powerful and compelling legal arguments in defense of marriage.

In their briefs, they point out that "this case involves two mutually exclusive and profoundly different marriage institutions, marriage institutions that serve separate, distinct, and conflicting societal purposes."

They go on to note that:

The man-woman marriage institution has uniquely provided valuable social benefits necessary to the well-being and stability of society and the development of individuals, especially children. In particular, the man-woman marriage institution's norms and other public meanings have helped a greater portion of children know and be raised by their mother and father.

Toward the end of the twentieth century, however, various individuals and groups began a campaign to use the force of law to replace the man-woman marriage (traditional marriage) institution with an institution that would still be called "marriage" but would have a very different core meaning: the union of any two persons without regard to gender (genderless marriage). This civil action is an important part of that campaign.

North Dakota can have only one social institution denominated "marriage." It cannot simultaneously provide the historically proven valuable social benefits of man-woman marriage and the asserted benefits of the new genderless marriage. One necessarily displaces or precludes the other.

This is exactly correct. Redefining marriage to include homosexual couples isn't simply adding a parallel institution that won't alter or interact with marriage — it fundamentally changes marriage and makes it an inherently genderless institution.

And that genderless institution is what will be pushed in government policy; in schools; indeed, through all mechanisms of government.