What is the cost of 5 people deciding to change the definition of marriage?

Why would the government concern itself with marriage?  According to the Defense of Marriage Act, enacted in 1996, one of the primary purposes of government getting involved in the marriage debate at all is that, “At bottom, civil society has an interest in maintaining and protecting the institution of heterosexual marriage because it has a deep and abiding interest in encouraging responsible procreation and child-rearing. Simply put, government has an interest in marriage because it has an interest in children.”

Children raised by their biological mother and father fare much better on every social science standard that has been studied.  The health of our society is determined by the health (emotional, physical and intellectual) of the rising generation.  Their ability to succeed is largely determined by the way they were raised. 

Katy Faust, an adult mother who was raised by her mother and homosexual partner said in an amicus brief to the supreme court, “…, when it comes to procreation and child-rearing, same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are wholly unequal and should be treated differently for the sake of the children.

When two adults who cannot procreate want to raise children together, where do those babies come from? Each child is conceived by a mother and a father to whom that child has a natural right. When a child is placed in a same-sex-headed household, she will miss out on at least one critical parental relationship and a vital dual-gender influence. The nature of the adults’ union guarantees this. Whether by adoption, divorce, or third-party reproduction, the adults in this scenario satisfy their heart’s desires, while the child bears the most significant cost: missing out on one or more of her biological parents.

Making policy that intentionally deprives children of their fundamental rights is something that we should not endorse, incentivise, or promote.

According to Ryan T. Anderson, the author of Truth overruled, there are two views of marriage.  The Consenting view which views marriage as the deep emotional bonds between two people regardless of their gender or the Comprehensive view of marriage which has been the view of marriage since the beginning of time.  That view is that marriage is a unique relationship between a man and a woman who are bound to each other and to the children they will produce through the sexual union of those two people.  The marriage binds not only the parents to each other, but the offspring they produce to the parents. 

While the comprehensive view of marriage has been accepted by all societies for millennia, we had 5 lawyers decide that it was time for our society to change, but not on the grounds of liberty and democracy.  They circumvented democracy because the majority of our states had decided democratically that the definition should not be changed, because these five people decided that they knew better than what has stood the test of time, the fundamental meaning of the marriage relationship has been legally changed.   They chose to circumvent our democratic process and as an extension, our liberty.  

The role of the judiciary is to determine if laws are constitutional.  Our constitution says nothing about marriage nor does it say anything about personal relationships.  The majority of cases that have been decided by the supreme court were about how the government should stay out of the personal relationships of the citizenry.  Except in this case where the majority of the justices have decided that it is their right to decide what a marriage relationship should be. 

IN addition to changing the definition of marriage, they have decided that the religious convictions of those who take the comprehensive view of marriage and want to uphold their right to believe in marriage between a man and a woman as being demeaning to same sex couples and stigmatizing them.  Justice Roberts in his dissenting opinion said, “These apparent assaults on the character of fairminded people will have an effect, in society and in court. See post, at 6–7 (ALITO, J., dissenting). Moreover, they are entirely gratuitous. It is one thing for the majority to conclude that the Constitution protects a right to same-sex marriage; it is something else to portray everyone who does not share the majority’s “better informed understanding” as bigoted.

With the courts opinion of religious minded people as bigoted, when the inevitable conflicts arise between same sex couples and those who hold their religious views as protected, it will be difficult to see if the court can uphold the 1^st amendment after overstepping its authority so completely in this case.