If the ability to produce children were a prerequisite to marriage, many straight couples would be denied marriage. Would you be willing to impose that prerequisite on all couples?

There are a number of gays and lesbians that have children through artificial insemination/surrogate mothers, adoption, or from previous heterosexual relationships. These kids are being denied legal benefits, such as insurance coverage, Social Security survivor benefits, etc...(Click here for a list of these rights) ..if their legal parent isn't the wage earner but instead stays at home with the kids (like many LDS mothers) while the parent's partner supports the household financially. The parent and the kids are denied insurance coverage through the working partner's employer. Note that the parent and the children can be put out on the street by the home owning/wage earning partner without the parent receiving alimony or community property protections. The kids also aren't given child support protections. These innocent kids are jeopardized by marriage laws preventing their parent and the parent's partner from obtaining the rights and protections marriage offers heterosexual couples. Opposing Civil Same-Sex Marriage is anti-child and anti-"stay at home parent". Would LDS wives and mothers be willing to raise their kids under those conditions? Should we force others to?

We also know that the kids of heterosexuals do better when their parents are married rather than just living together. The parents' relationship is more stable and grounded and that gives kids a more secure feeling. We know that when the parents are married rather than just roommates, that the relationship lasts longer. Far more unmarried couples split up than marriages. Marriage provides more stability to the kids. Denying gays marriage objectively harms their kids and makes them feel more insecure and increases their risk of living in a single parent home and the accompanying harm that it causes. Opposing Civil Same-Sex Marriage is anti-child and anti-family. Why are we LDS promoting this anti-child and anti- family agenda?

Some suggest that since gays can't naturally produce kids together, that they don't deserve marriage. I would suggest that those who use artificial means to have children (gay or straight) and go through the expense and heartache and time involved are more determined and desirous of having children and therefore are more likely and determined to provide adequate love and support for the children. It's like giving a kid a bike vs. making them earn the money to buy it. Which child is more likely to appreciate the bike and take care of it..the former or the latter? I've seen plenty of men abandon women after getting them pregnant following a night of passion. Passion isn't rational. Passion-based child-bearing hardly assures a mutual commitment to the kids nor a commitment to providing them love and support. The deliberative acts of straights or gays to have children via artificial means demonstrates a MUCH greater degree of commitment and determination to provide them love and support. I've never heard of an elective abortion after the women gets pregnant via artificial means. Abortions after a night of passion are common. The bottom line is that the means of producing children matters much much less than the determination of the parents to provide their kids the love and support they deserve. We as a society need to provide ALL children the legal benefits and protections that they all deserve, no matter the method of their conception or the sexual orientation of their parents. To do less is anti-child and anti-family and detrimental to society as a whole.

Many say that having two parents of the same sex isn't ideal for the raising of children yet both single straights and gays adopt kids. Even if having two opposite sex parents is ideal, it is still not sufficient grounds to prevent single straights or gays from adopting. Since that is the case, how is it sufficient grounds to deny gays marriage, especially if they don't plan on raising kids?

Many straight couples aren't ideal parents. They may have poor morals , do drugs, subject kids to second hand smoke, drink, belittle education, put the kids in day care every day, live in a poor/dangerous neighborhood, don't provide a well balanced diet, etc...Why are such sub-ideal couples allowed to marry, but a lesbian couple, both with degrees in Marriage, Family and Human Development from BYU, who are active in a church, who are actively involved in the child's local school, who live in a nice neighborhood, who have one parent stay home and make nutritious well balanced meals and raises the child with no day care, where neither parent smokes, drinks, does drugs, etc...are NOT allowed to marry? Which couple is more fit to raise a child and deserve the protections marriage provides spouses and kids? Which couple will get it however?

Multiple studies have shown that the kids of same-sex parents do fine and grow up no different than kids raised by straight parents. Even if kids in homes with a mom and a dad do better, shouldn't we focus our resources in helping those kids who are doing less well rather than giving them primarily to the kids who are already doing fine (as we are doing now)? The studies have shown that the children in single parent households do worse. Denying same-sex couples the opportunity to wed forces them to be "single parents" and makes their homes less stable. Marriage gives relationships stability and denying this stability to same-sex couples harms both them and their kids. It's anti-family and anti-child to deny them marriage.

Marriage benefits society because it causes people to support each other rather than having individuals rely on government for help. Alimony, Community Property laws, Child Support, etc...are all examples of how marriage causes people to help others rather than having them rely on government. Click here for a list of these rights. If women didn't have these protections, a man could divorce his wife and literally put her and the kids out on the street with just the clothes on their backs. The situation wouldn't be tolerated in today's society but it is an every day reality for gays. If a lesbian has children after moving in with another lesbian and stays home with her kids while her partner works, she can eventually be kicked out, with the kids, with no recourse. Even while they live together, she and her children enjoy no insurance benefits, survivorship benefits, or the right not to be forced to testify against her partner as married people currently enjoy. Opposing Civil Same-Sex Marriage is anti-child and anti-"stay at home parent". Would LDS wives and mothers be willing to raise their kids under those conditions? Should we force others to do so?

We seem to forget about the children of same-sex couples. These are innocent kids who have done nothing wrong and yet society withholds their needed legal protections. These innocent victims are simply "collateral damage" in a war against equality and for subjective morality.

The bottom line is that having kids or the ability to have kids is not a rational factor in providing the benefits of legal marriage and it is impossible to make it an issue without advocating denying marriage to many straight couples who won't or can't have children. The issue of whether gay parents are ideal or not is also a non issue since many gay couples are far more suited to be excellent parents than many straight couples as the example above shows.

If we REALLY want to make marriage about having kids and make things completely fair and equal, here's what we can do -

Deny marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples and have straight couples complete a marriage license application form that asks whether the woman is over 50 or post menopausal, has had a hysterectomy, has a history of frequent miscarriages or has been declared infertile by a doctor. It also asks the men if they've had a vasectomy or have been declared sterile by a doctor. If both mark "no" to all questions, then they get the license, but if they haven't given birth within three years, their marriage license is rescinded and their marriage is annulled. Also, the government should be able to access their medical records to prove that neither have been sterilized or are infertile to prevent misstatements about it on their application. This will make sure that only those couples able and willing to have kids are allowed to marry and stay married.

Other than a few extra questions on the application, all that is needed is a computer program that checks the birth records of kids and/or income tax returns against the marriage license list. This simple computer program running on an existing computer is all that is needed. The records could be downloaded and processed in a matter of seconds every night. Those, which the computer does not show as having had a kid after 2 years of marriage, will automatically be mailed a notice saying that they have 1 year to have a kid or to be registered as wanting to adopt any child the state has available. Those who do neither by their third anniversary will automatically be mailed a letter revoking their marriage license and annulling their marriage.

The software program may cost a few thousand to write, but once implemented, there would be no other costs other than postage and stationery. The state would recover those costs quickly during the first year if only through the withdrawal of insurance coverage for the spouses of just a few state employees when those couples fail to have kids within three years of marriage.

The state will reap a windfall though savings on insurance premiums, higher corporate income tax revenues (since companies won't have as many people to provide health care for, their profits will be higher and therefore, so will the taxes they pay), higher personal income tax revenues (due to people having to file separately), higher estate tax revenues (since couples won't inherit their partner's estate without paying taxes), etc....

Though this idea would treat gays and straights equally, I doubt that many of us would support it even if it saved corporations and the taxpayers thousands of dollars.

Even this isn't perfect since gays, and their kids from previous straight relationships, adoption, artificial insemination, rape, etc..., are still denied benefits while straights having kids through the exact same means receive the benefits. The only way to make this fair is to give gay couples with kids all of the rights of marriage that straights with kids receive through marriage. This is the only way to make marriage about having and raising kids without being discriminatory.

The only other way to achieve complete fairness and equality is to simply allow gays to marry. Why is that so wrong?