Terence Jeffrey has an op ed on The Patriot Post which is a perfect example of why the anti marriage equality movement continues to lose in court case after court case as well as in the general public opinion poll. The only argument which can be made against civil recognition of same-sex marriage is a religious/moral argument irrelevant to our civil government and brought with inconsistencies so that the underlying bigotry is all that can be seen.

Let me preface the rest by saying, I believe that anyone has a right to hold whatever moral or religious views they wish to hold. I would say however, that personal religious views are not sufficient grounds to deny others their Constitutional Right to equal protection under the law. So, I am not wiling to find fault with the basic moral position that homosexuality is wrong. I don’t believe that, but I respect others have that right. I do oppose others forcing their moral views onto me and my family. But when you get past the base “moral” argument, their position falls apart pretty quickly, and it becomes clear that “moral,” is a relative issue for opponents to same sex marriage where their base beliefs are inconsistent and even contradictory.

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/27812

Jeffrey’s argument suggests that he opposes adoption because by his logic, a mother is immoral if she places a child for adoption.

Additionally, marriage is about far more than procreation. If it were not, we would require all couples seeking marriage to be able to procreate. We do not do this. We allow marriages where there are no children produced. Because we allow a couple to marry even if they have no plans to have children,we discriminate against same-sex couples unfairly.

We know that where marriages result in children, that the quality of the love experienced by the child not the biological sex of the parent. There are many children raised by opposite sex couples where the children are deprived quality love. Your argument and logic ignores this and assumes that all opposite sex couples by nature are ideal parenting entities. This is where your argument fails most. Additionally, to suggest that a child must have both a male and a female parent means that you also oppose divorce, yet I doubt you are either writing about nor advocating for an end to all ability to receive a legal divorce.

The most basic premise of your argument is a moral one, to which you are entitled to hold. But Civil Marriage is not about a moral basis but if the State has a justification to control who can marry. The State makes a number of decisions that are contrary to moral choices. For example, the State determines and grants divorce which is also immoral. And States determine familial relationships and how they impact marriage. Some states allow cousin marriage and others do not. My point is that a purely moral basis is not the basis used by the State, and therefore, a moral argument alone cannot be used to stop same-sex marriage.

Jeffrey closes with a poignant albeit incorrect mental image:

Here a mother is reduced to a human mule. She carries a child she is legally required to surrender into the custody of the person who has paid to use her body,  if not her soul.

He is discussing the issue of surrogacy as a means by which gay male couples, as well as others acquire children to raise. In reality is Jeffrey’s own construct of the family based on misinterpreted Biblical passages which treats the woman as a “mule,” because in a traditional marriage the woman has no role except as child bearer.

Same-sex couples make up between two and five per cent of the population. Opposite sex couples will continue to marry and have children. Procreation is not threatened by the legal recognition of same-sex relationships. Religious individuals’ views of marriage as a sacred rite before their god will not be endangered by same sex civil marriage any more than the current civil institution of marriage impacts them. And there will continue tone children who need loving parents: some orphaned, some abandoned, some born to opposite sex couples.  What will change however is that for the first time ever, same-sex couples will stop being treated as second class citizens, and that is an important development which harms no one.