In light of the recent Prop 8 ruling, it will become necessary for Americans to draw lines on the marriage issue. What was once a state discussion has been springboarded into a national discussion. The GOP must stand firm for traditional marriage, and it must do so not out of bigotry or bias, but out of common sense. Common sense indicates that regardless of the love gay couples feel, and regardless of the newfound societal acceptance of homosexuality in the mainstream, marriage has always meant one thing, and must always continue to mean one thing: the union of a man and a woman by which they become husband and wife.

The most common argument in favor of marriage redefinition is that it is in some way discriminatory for a state to refuse to recognize a same-sex relationship as a marriage. When one poses the question, discrimination based on what? The answer will come: sexual orientation. But what is discrimination based on sexual orientation, in reality? An example would be a “No Gays” sign in a store window. This is discrimination based on sexual orientation – the exclusion of individuals who are homosexual. But this is not the same as the principle of traditional marriage. If there were true marital discrimination imposed on homosexuals, it would mean that a homosexual man and a homosexual woman would be unable to marry under the law, because it would mean that homosexuals cannot marry. This is not the case – the two can marry, and by the same token, a heterosexual man cannot “marry” another heterosexual man as well. Therefore, the argument that it is discrimination based on sexual orientation does not stand under scrutiny. The fallacy stems from the collectivist belief that we derive our rights as groups, rather than as individuals, which is contrary to the individualist philosophy of our Founders and our Constitution.

Marriage redefinition proponents will also argue that anyone should be allowed to marry the person that they love. But is that really true? I read an article on Deutsche Welle recently – the subject of incest has arisen in Germany. A man and his sister were seperated at birth, and did not know the other existed until they met in their early 20′s. They fell in love, and have been committed to each other for some years. Now, if this case were here in the US, would they be allowed to marry the person that they love? Of course not. This is because love is not the determining factor in the marriage question, and love alone does not constitute marriage. And again, the other side of that coin is that there are couples who marry who are not in love – I think the excessive divorce rate is proof enough of this. Love is not asked about or quantified in the issuance of a marriage license, and it is thus irrelevant to the debate.

Another common tactic of proponents is to try to tear down traditional marriage to prove that it is “not sacred”. They will mention the divorce rate and adultery to justify this claim. As most have heard repeatedly, there has been around a 50% divorce rate for quite some time. But if we look back on the history of marriage and Christianity’s role in society, we will see that it has not always been this way. Although it is true that half of modern marriages end in divorce, activists will not tell you that it is a result of rejection of Christianity. I recently watched a Billy Graham sermon in which he noted that “among marriages in which the husband and wife read the Bible every day, and go to church every Sunday, the divorce rate is about %0.25″. This is almost unbelievably miniscule compared with the overall number. Though Christianity is still the majority religion, it does not have the influence it once did, say, 60 years ago. But it’s clear by this count that the more Christians there are, the lower the divorce rate is. This is relevant because we derive the marriage institution itself from Christianity – the establishment of marriage in government came as a result of Christians who wanted the tax benefits, specifically. If there hadn’t been Christians, there wouldn’t be marriage at all, and yet Christianity is now dismissed as an unreasonable justification for the preservation of traditional marriage because of a popularized secular understanding of the First Amendment. Those that read the First Amendment will find that in no way does it prohibit religion from motivating a legislative decision; it prohibits only the federal government from infringing upon religious expression, or favoring a certain establishment of religion (such as a church) over the others. This is interpreted by secularists as meaning that Christian principles must be kept out of the public arena – a notion that would absolutely appall the same Founders who regularly prayed together on the floor of the House for guidance in their decisions and favor in their Revolution.

But perhaps there is some necessity to argue the case for traditional marriage from this rather radical secular perspective, as if one does not, they are dismissed in the mainstream as “Christian fascists”. This is convenient for me, personally, as I earnestly believe that the strongest case for traditional marriage is one that does not require religious inclusion. This case is based upon the premise that men and women are profoundly different, psychologically, physiologically, biologically, and obviously, physically. If this is true, then is it not inherently true that there is a component to a male-female relationship that is lacking in a same-sex relationship? If men possess qualities which women do not, does that not mean that there are certain things that a man can contribute to a relationship and a family that two women cannot? For marriage redefinition activists to refute this point, they would have to make the claim that men and women are identical, and that there are no differences between them. I doubt that there is any scientific, religious, or plainly rational justification of substance to support this, and if there is, I have not come across it. Ultimately, the indisputable differences between men and women indicate that male-female relationships are in no way the same as same-sex relationships – and as a result, they cannot fall under the same definition.

That is not to say, however, that I am personally opposed to federal civil unions. I have no problem with homosexual couples receiving the 1100 or so federal benefits which are currently lacking in civil unions and are included in marriage. As a conservative, I am a believer in unrestricted choice, and so if they choose to enter into those relationships/contracts, then so be it. But if this were really about “civil rights”, as homosexuals will insist, then they would take their rights and the debate would be over. They don’t, because their intent does not stop at equal protection – they want to ensure that society at large perceives their relationships as exactly the same as marriages, and forever rid the country of the ignorant notion that somehow a child should be raised by a father and a mother, and that marriages require a bride and a bridegroom. They also know that this will never happen in America unless they can use deception to emotionally engineer and propagandize on a massive scale – painting marriage defenders as intolerant bigots, equating marriage redefinition with the Civil Rights Movement, and completely obliterating gender roles are just a couple of their most favorite strategies. Whatever it takes to convince the masses that marriage redefinition is synonymous with irrefutable morality, and subvert the opposition in the most insidious and nefarious ways they can.

And they don’t mind the millions they make in profits in the process.