The legal recognition of marriage is based upon the government’s interest in encouraging stable, committed relationships. Stable relationships reduce the need for society to provide support for its members. For all involved, it is best for a man and a woman to abstain from sex until marriage—this eliminates the risk of contracting STDs, HPV in women, and unwanted children out of wedlock. Why is this important? Research shows that, on average, children do best when raised by their biological parents in a good home.

Legal marriage between a man and a woman is society’s way of encouraging monogamy and commitment by those who may create children through their sexual coupling.

Government inclusion of any other union within the definition of “marriage” would reflect a belief in the moral equivalence of acts between a husband and wife and acts between two men or two women (or three, four, etc.). This belief would form the basis for public education requirements and legal enforcement of that view through laws restricting the free speech and action of those who believe that sexual acts between members of the same sex are not morally acceptable. In truth, school textbooks would be required to present ‘marriage’ as being a heterosexual or homosexual union. It would be illegal for a teacher to present the idea that marriage be between a man and a woman.

The definition proposed by same-sex marriage advocates changes the social importance of marriage from its natural function of reproduction into a mere legality or freedom to have sex. In essence, this is a step toward legitimizing the sexual behaviors of homosexuals. In California, same-sex couples have all of the same rights as married couples through ‘civil unions.’ This is not the issue they are fighting—these advocates want to change the definition of marriage; they want the American Heritage Dictionary to change what it means to be ‘married.’ Below are the first two definitions of marriage presented in the aforementioned dictionary:

1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. 

2. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage. 

Same-sex advocates want to change what the word ‘marriage’ means.

Inclusion of same-sex unions within the definition of marriage would also evidence rejection of the idea that it is best that children be raised by their biological mother and father, and that it is the community’s interest in insuring the well-being of children that forms the basis for the government’s licensure and involvement in marriage.

Is the burden of proof met that same-sex marriage is harmless? If an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action.

The pursuit of social recognition and legal benefits by means of marriage reinforces marriage as an institution, and these rights could be made available to all persons—including single persons, and polygamous partners. This could raise other legitimizing principles: polyamory practices, incest, beastiality. We have already seen some polygamous groups questioning how same-sex couples can be included under the definition of marriage, while their groups are not. 

The question of ‘violating rights’ needs to be addressed—but it isn’t the same-sex marriage advocate’s ‘rights’ that need to be protected. By not changing anything, civil unions and marriage are the same—nobody’s rights are diminished. If we change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, the free speech of heterosexual couples will be infringed upon.

Taking an idea presented in that great work, The Declaration of Independence, I ask: is it not prudent that government institutions long established should not be changed for light and transient causes? Is it prudent to change the definition of the government institution of marriage for less than 1% of the population?