We agree that states shouldn’t write laws that don’t benefit the state as a whole. What I mean by benefit is maximize the freedom and liberty, wealth and prosperity, security and peace of the people. These are all things that we need to be truly happy, and they are things we seek to maximize in our daily lives, no matter what we have decided to do to maximize them.
Could such laws include laws dictating how children should be raised? I believe it does, and many states include such laws which, at the very least, define minimum behavior standards of parents. If parents don’t meet these standards, then the state has the power to compel the parents to conform, or to take the children away and put them among parents who will meet the minimum standards, and exceed them.
Could such laws include what types of families are preferred living arrangements for children? I believe the answer here is “yes” as well. For instance, a state could say that families which have regular income, a secure and warm home, with modern conveniences such as running water, electricity, and natural gas, would be the bare minimum.
Given the above, would it be wise to say what kinds of people are allowed to be the parents of the family? Certainly, we could write laws that certain kinds of felonies would mean that the individual could not act as a parent in their family, at least until they have restored what they have damaged and paid whatever penalties have been proscribed. I know states tend not to do this, but I think and argument can be made along those lines. We certainly might agree that parents who have a criminal history of committing a felony can be disbarred from adopting or taking in children as foster parents, except in extreme circumstances (such as the parents are close relatives, have shown signs of complete reform for many years after paying their penalty, etc…)
What about the genders of the parents? Should we say things like, “There should be one woman and one man in the household who act as the parents?” I think this is reasonable, in particular because there is a wealth of research showing the positive benefits of having children raised in a home with a mother and a father. Is such an arrangement superior to homosexual unions? I believe so.
So we are left with a predicament. If the state decides to believe the research and public opinion showing that heterosexual couples make superior parents to homosexual ones, then how can it legislate that without discriminating against people based on their sexual preference? It is rather simple: define marriage as between a man and a woman, and then proscribe a preference for married couples over all other relationships.
This is why we can’t redefine marriage. We are left with the seemingly opposite of what homosexual marriage advocates would have us believe.
Marriage between one man and one woman requires no discrimination against sexual preference whatsoever. What a married spouse’s sexual preference is of NO interest to the state or community.
Marriage between one man and one woman, or between two women, or between two men, requires we discriminate based on sexual preference and gender, if it turns out heterosexual couples are the ideal parental relationship.
In a strange turn, the change that homosexual marriage advocates would have us make would make us all discriminate against people based on their sexual preference, while leaving things alone allows us to ignore people’s sexual preferences altogether.