I heard an interesting argument recently about marriage and it went something like this.

1) The “gay marriage” fairytale hurts children.

My son has not been hurt by my life long partnership with my wife Sarah. Our love and relationship has endured fifteen years and my son sees the stable and loving home with his moms. He is a strong and capable young man who knows he is loved and supported. It’s a myth that children become gay or can’t flourish in the home of a gay couple. Where there is love for the child there is a happy and healthy child.


2) Here’s what marriage is. Marriage is the God-ordained, lifelong, covenantal union between man and wife, designed to provide men, women and children optimal stability and overall well-being. Marriage is that biologically, spiritually and morally centered institution calculated to ensure responsible procreation and perpetuate the human race. Marriage, real marriage, represents the fundamental cornerstone of any healthy society (any society that hopes to survive, at least).

2A) Here’s what marriage is not: Anything else.”

I can buy this. Yup Marriage by your definition is solely a religious thing ordained by GOD…

Ever hear of separation of church and state? The moment the state got involved with “marriage” the definition as presented by the bible became null and void at least in this discussion about legal rights under the law of man. Marriage according to the state grants legal rights. You can’t deny any citizen fair and free access to any law.

Because it can’t be God related do to separations mandated by the constitution marriage is therefore a LEGAL union of persons presumably for the purpose of family, protecting assets and other “legal” protections afforded to persons now joined. So your definition based on the constitution and legal precedent is flawed. The moment the state got involved with regulating “marriage” the religious component becomes void.

While I understand your under pining’s the fact remains. Marriage in the USA by the state or any federal agency grants certain rights to individuals. So we have to separate your definition from the legal one. To deny me access to the same protections and rights as other citizens is frankly wrong even in the eyes of the same God you quote.

Galatians 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Romans 2:11 “For God shows no partiality.”

Mark 12:31 The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

Act 10:34 So Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality,

At every turn God does not say love your neighbor unless she is gay, or unless she is black. No love your neighbor period. At no point does God place favorites. All are equal and all are his. No exceptions and no fine print.

Romans: 3:23 For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

No one can live up to the perfection of God. You yourself sin as much as I. The bible dictates equality under the law, equality under God. So to exclude me from the law of state marriage you violate the same book you quote. That doesn’t show me much love. /smh

3) On Thursday, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Ohio agreed. It rightly upheld natural marriage laws in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee. In the 6th Circuit’s decision, Judge Jeffrey Sutton wrote, “Of all the ways to resolve this question, one option is not available: a poll of the three judges of this panel, or for that matter all federal judges, about whether gay marriage is a good idea. Our judicial commissions did not come with such a sweeping grant of authority, one that would allow just three of us – just two of us in truth – to make such a vital policy call for the thirty-two million citizens who live within the four states of the 6th Circuit.”

Ahh. You see this as striking down something. In reality this is the judges saying we don’t have the authority to make this ruling. Basically they are saying let the state rule on it. In other words a vote. I would challenge this law based upon the legal rights denied me by the laws wording. You’d see a different reaction. When you apply a law unequally it violates the rights of others. In this case you apply a limited religious view to a civil law.

You can’t have it both ways. Either no one can force their religious views into law or everyone can. Where will you be then when Sharia is forced upon you? By ignoring the legality of the law of the state you force you view upon the law.

3) Here’s what most folks don’t know. The U.S. Supreme Court has already settled the “gay marriage” debate. In its 1972 Baker v. Nelson decision, the high court found that there is no “federal question” surrounding the definition of marriage. That is to say, there is no constitutional “equal protection” right (or any other right for that matter) to so-called “same-sex marriage.”

3A) This, my friends, is the law of the land.

Ahh back to your definition of marriage being a religious one observed by Jews and Christians through out time. However the Greeks recognized marriages between same sex back in the time of Athens. Many cultures before yours have recognized the union of multiple partners (Mormons, Muslims and others) and other cultures and views of morality as well.

So it is not a cultural but a religious argument you have and therefore back to my point. Separation of church and state. Your narrow religious view can not be the law of the land. Because it can’t be applied equally to all.

Any law which denies some is unjust and void. By denying two people the right to “marry” per the legal status is by itself and on the face is illegal. Perhaps the state shouldn’t be in the marriage business. Everything the state does should be a civil union and if a church also married you then you are married by the church and joined in civil union by the state. Otherwise we go back to church and state debate.

4) The 6th Circuit upheld natural marriage based on the Supreme Court’s Baker decision, noting that it remains controlling law. “The Court has yet to inform us that we are not, and we have no license to engage in a guessing game about whether the Court will change its mind or, more aggressively, to assume authority to overrule Baker ourselves.”

Wrong! Again the 6th circuit said we don’t have the authority to make choices that should be voted on or taken through the proper government channels. If you challenge marriage as defined by faith and not the law you’d lose.

Here is the simple argument:

Your honor does marriage bestow certain rights, protections and privileges upon those married under man’s law as defined by the laws of the united states?

The only answer is yes it does.

Then your honor how can you deny any citizen the same rights and protections as another citizen. I submit to the court the law is not applied equally to all citizens and is thereby illegal.

Case dismissed…And here is why. The same supreme court you love quoting. “An 1896 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 6 S. Ct. 1064, 30 L. Ed. 220 (1886), held that the unequal application of a law violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”

Marriage as a legal institute and law of the land. Violates MY fourteenth amendment rights because of it’s unequal application and the bestowal of rights as granted by this law to some while excluding others.

5) In Baker, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that a law protecting the timeless definition of marriage as between one man and one woman did not violate the U.S. Constitution: “The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis,” the court found, further recognizing that “there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.”

So forcing YOUR narrow religious definition. Many cultures even very ancient ones dating back 1000s of years have allowed gay marriage as a means of protecting assets ect.. Under legal standing. We’ve already covered the fourteenth amendment.


6) Every rogue federal court that has somehow divined a constitutional “right” for two people of the same-sex to “marry” is not only out of touch with reality, it’s out of touch with the U.S. Supreme Court.

Wrong again. They are saying since the state is involved the religious view of marriage is void and only then the legal view can be used. There is no compelling interest other than hate to deny two people the right to the same legal protections as any other citizen. Hate is the only reason to deny another the same legal protections and rights as another.

Justice Kennedy writes that the Defense of Marriage Act violates the principles of federalism, which allow states to largely chart their own course.

Of course this is because some citizens are denied the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as defined by the constitution and equal protection under the law. What harm does my wife and I have upon you? The answer none because it’s none of your business what happens in my home.

And you sir don’t have the right to deny me my equality under the law. Neither biblically or legally do you have a leg to stand on when you deny me the same exact protections you enjoy under the law. Man’s law or Gods law.

7) Hmm: “The State’s power in defining the marital relation.” That’s promising. While, in reality, nobody, not even the states, has the power to define, or to redefine, marriage (that’s solely within God’s purview), that Kennedy evidently believes this to be a “states’ rights” issue bodes well for both the rule of law and for the preservation of marriage.

Back to God. I guess you don’t understand that you can’t force your God nor his beliefs on others. You can’t say the state has the right to determine which version of God is the correct one. No they can say we the state recognize marriage (since they insist on calling it that) as a “legal status” allowing all benefits defined under that law to ALL citizens of the land or to none. A law must be equal or it violates the very tenants of God and the constitution.

The moment the state called it marriage it becomes no longer about God and all about legal protections.

Your is to be stoned to death, Murders are to be put to death, Rapists become a slave to the woman they raped. As for me I refuse to allow you to define the law as unequal but fair because you say so. You defined your religious view point and that’s great for you, but religion has NOTHING to do with the state or federal law.

Since my life, my liberty and my happiness don’t affect you I am fine knowing I am married to my same-sex wife. I will answer to MY God the same as you will answer to yours. You are far from perfect as am I. But I’ll see you in heaven none the less.

So unless you can answer these with compelling evidence to deny me the same legal protections and rights under the law you lose.

  1. Tell me the harm I bring to you personally? And/or to society?
  2. How my marriage violates your rights in ANY way?
  3. How denying me the protections of the law that you enjoy is fair and just application of the law?

Flat out you lose this debate sir because you can’t justify biblically or morally or legally denying me equal protection under the law. Gods law or man’s law! I don’t expect your religious blessing, but I also don’t expect your discrimination under the laws of the state based upon your religious view.

Have a good day.