GOP Lawmakers Make Case for Upholding Gay Marriage Ban

Gay marriage is a very controversial subject and the debate has attracted many.  In our society, some (myself included) people believe that homosexuality is immoral while gay advocates believe that everyone have their preferences.  Thus, it is important to put into consideration the sexual preferences of everyone in our society. 

The article GopLawmakers Make Case for Upholding Gay Marriage Ban by Eli Okun and Terri Langford describes a brief that Greg Abbott’s office filed arguing that Texas’ ban on same-sex marriage is constitutionally sound and that this matter is to be decided by the voters not the courts.  The brief was filed in the 5^th Circuit Court of Appeals, where the state is appealing the ruling that same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. 

To begin advocates for same sex marriage argue that denying a couple the rights to marry any person of their choice regardless of their sexes is not right since it denies them of their basic human rights.  In fact, there are certain rights (health care, social security, and joint tax benefits) that un-married people cannot enjoy. 

In the brief, the state argues that same-sex marriage cannot encourage the birth of children in the context of stable and lasting relationships.  Research done by Krause depicted that only natural marriage between a man and a woman can consistently provide a stable and nurturing environment for the growth of the next generation. 

Furthermore, the brief indicates that the court should not overrule the voters’ decision to define marriage in the state constitution as solely the union of one man and one woman.  Opponents of the ban insist that with the rapid increase in single-parent family and the outrageous divorce rates over the decade, the true meaning of marriage is weaken.  I have to disagree with opponents of the ban here because the traditional definition of marriage has always been the union between a man and a woman.  Changing the definition now could lead to confusion in the society where others might claim it is within their rights to have multiple wives.

The attorney general argues that the state does not need to prove that same-sex marriage is detrimental to the state interests, but simply that heterosexual marriages are more beneficial.  One must remember that children raised in homosexual homes are continually exposed to homosexuality.  In fact, they are at a high risk of becoming homosexuals themselves because their environment will affect their behavior.  On the other hand, if these children are raised in a traditional home they have more of a chance to turn out normal.

They counter the argument that they cannot provide a stable home by saying that there are many children around the world who are living in stable gay households.  The only issue with this claim is that they have no solid evidence to back it up.  It is pure speculations. 

Opponents of gay marriage ban contend that gays would be of benefit to the society.  They claim that since gays cannot procreate if allowed to wed would have no choice but to adopt.  In essence, there would be less children needing to be adopted.  Consequently, the state would need to spend less to provide for all the children currently in foster care agencies.

It is my opinion that same sex marriage violates the sacred institution of marriage.  Almost all of the religions around the world, condemn homosexuality.  The Bible serves as a guide for a lost humanity.  I am just afraid of the aftermath of same-sex marriage. 

Opponents of the brief say that the constitution says that they have a right to the pursuit of happiness and if a person of the same sex makes him/her, happy he/she should be allowed to pursue that.  My only problem with this mentality is how far will we stretch the line?  What if someone else declared that they found happiness with a non-human, would they be allowed to marry it?  There must be a point where we draw the line not because we are trying to hurt anyone but because we have morals to follow.