3. HEAR SOME ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF GAY MARRIAGE
"Same-sex couples deserve exactly the same benefits and protections under the law as everyone else."
The Argument: Just as the Supreme Court struck down laws preventing interracial marriage in 1967 (Loving v. Virginia), the laws currently preventing gay couples from enjoying the legal status of marriage must also be struck down. This is not merely an argument of semantics over the term "marriage," but a civil rights issue.
The Response: No homosexual couple can claim a right to marriage, if marriage is, by definition, the joining of two people of opposite sex. Furthermore, the reason that certain benefits and privileges for married people are ingrained in the law is that society has a stake in supporting families. Society cannot survive without heterosexual couples and their offspring, while it can get along fine without homosexual couples. Even if gay marriage were not immoral, it would be unnecessary. In the case of Loving v. Virginia the court did not redefine the institution of marriage itself, so it is false reasoning to draw a parallel between racial discrimination and the illegality of so-called "same-sex marriage."
"Homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, but a genetic predisposition."
The Argument: The latest scientific evidence strongly suggests that homosexuality is predetermined by one's genetic makeup. Those who oppose same-sex marriage cannot do so on the basis that being gay or straight is an option. It is simply bigotry to deny a loving couple the opportunity to get married, regardless of the sexual orientation of the partners.
The Response: The scientific evidence pushed by gay-rights activists is spurious. There is no proof that homosexuality has a genetic cause. Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, and the institution of marriage is not a necessary component of that choice.
"Domestic partnership benefits, or anything short of full marriage, constitute a form of discriminatory apartheid, because of the special conditions attached to them."
The Argument: The relatively weak privileges bestowed through domestic partnership benefits are, for instance, not portable to other states and nations. They thus constitute an obvious second-class status. Even a domestic partnership status which conferred all the benefits of marriage (such as the one being considered by the Vermont legislature), but under a different name, wouldn't work, because of the many hundreds of federal and state laws which refer specifically to "marriage".
The Response: There is no popular mandate for same-sex marriage, so it is unfortunate that court decisions are forcing politicians to craft laws the people clearly do not want. If legislators are compelled to grant certain benefits to same-sex couples, the least they can do on behalf of their constituents is to protect the integrity of the term "marriage" by denying it to these couples.
