JFarrish et. al., throughout this whole discussion not once have I disagreed with anyone’s assertion about the importance of marriage in society, nor should I since I am married with two children. My wife makes much more money than I and we believe it is best for our children to have a parent at home to care for them, and that parent is me for the last seven years; I gave up my career because I believe the children and the family are more important than my work. I dearly miss my career and would rather not have this job, but I am taking one for the team because I believe the team is stronger than my selfish desires. Frankly, I almost entirely agree with the Catholic position on marriage, the with the obvious exception of the current qualifying condition of gender to benefit from the institution.
I’m on your side and so are the gays, that’s why they want to be a part of it. Marriage is important to society, so why limit the institution? It makes better sense to me to expand it so that more people and society may benefit from it. To declare homosexuals, who are otherwise law-abiding and productive citizens, deviants, dirty, dangerous, and unfit for society is counter productive to a society that benefits from giving all members (with the obvious exclusion of criminals) equal standing and protection. Furthermore, homosexuality itself is not a crime and neither is gay sex.
But all the above is beside the point in regards to the law as it exists. I want to help you make a better case against gay marriage and will continue to hold my ground, which is the position of the courts, that in order to declare gay marriage bad for society the case must be made how gay marriage harms an individual and can prove specific damage besides hurting one’s sensibilities. It must be shown how a gay marriage has infringed upon your constitutional rights. Those are the rules of the court and the constitution, not mine, and as long as the courts have the final say and until a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is passed, that question must be answered in the context of existing law. The courts will not recognize speculative pronouncements of the dangers of gay marriage until someone can convince a court how gay marriage has harmed an individual. The gays have successfully convinced the courts how they, individually, are harmed by being denied the rights and benefits of marriage, and the anti-gay marriage side needs to do the exact same thing. There are six states which allow gay marriage and I am sure there must be someone in one of those states who feels as strongly as you all do how detrimental it is and is willing to go before a judge to prove how he/she has been harmed or denied his/her constitutional rights as a direct cause of gay marriage. This is one of the surest ways to stop gay marriage. Via con dios.
