Why Does The State of Indiana Recognize Marriage?
by Ryan McCann

There are many ways to reveal that the "emperors" lobbying for same-sex marriage have no clothes. However, Byron Babione of the Alliance Defense Fund utilized the most powerful argument in the toolbox during his stunning testimony in front of the Indiana House Judiciary Committee on Monday, March 14th.

In discussing whether same-sex marriage should or should not be recognized by the State of Indiana, the key is to understand why the State of Indiana recognizes marriage in the first place (a.k.a. the state's interest in marriage). The state recognizes marriage in order to create a mechanism through which heterosexual couples will be legally bound to one another and the children they produce. The state does not necessarily care about the love between two people; its interest lies in reproduction between a man and a woman. The state must have a way to legally bind mothers and fathers to each other and their children. Without this mechanism, which we call marriage, mothers and fathers would have no legal responsibility to one another or to their children. You can imagine the chaos this social experiment would bring. We already see the results of family breakdown today, and the State often has to pay the bill. If the basis for family (marriage) became tainted, causing it to decline much faster than it is currently, family disintegration would rise astronomically.

I know, I know, you have already heard the procreation argument, right? Wrong…at least not the refined version, courtesy of ADF. Liberals argue that this line of reasoning would allow the state to bar heterosexual couples who are unable or unwilling to bear children from marrying. The argument goes something like this, "If government can deny homosexuals marriage licenses because they cannot spontaneously conceive, what bars the government from denying certain heterosexual couples marriage licenses?" However, this argument crumbles upon inspection.

Legal precedent is very clear on this subject. The government cannot deny or revoke marriage licenses based on the lack of will or ability of heterosexual couples to bear children. Additionally, the state's interest is not to maximize the number of children produced, but to maximize the number of children who are legally bound to their biological parents. A small portion of heterosexual couples do not have the ability to spontaneously produce children, but all homosexual couples lack this ability. Thus, state recognition of same-sex couples would destroy the entire reason for state recognition of marriage (spontaneous conception), while allowing this category of heterosexual couples to marry would not.

Again, the state's interest in marriage is to legally bind heterosexual couples to one another and to the children they spontaneously conceive. Through this the state throws out a wide net that applies to all Hoosiers (all Hoosiers have the right to marry one member of the opposite sex outside of his or her family). The ultimate goal is to maintain a stable society, but if the state allows some heterosexual couples into marriage that are unable or unwilling to bear children it does not matter because the state's interest is still being pursued. Couples who are capable of spontaneously producing children are effectively within this net of marriage.

Thus, it is false to claim that this procreation argument would allow the state to deny certain heterosexual couples a marriage license.

Homosexuals can never spontaneously reproduce. Because of this, the state does not have an interest in creating marital rights for homosexuals, a right they currently do not have. However, heterosexuals who cannot or will not have children are in an entirely different category because they already possess a right to marry. Thus, the government would actually be taking away a right these heterosexuals currently enjoy.

Hence, marriage in Indiana is, has always been and should always be defined as only the union between one man and one woman. If it changes to include homosexual couples, the rationale for state recognition of marriage disappears and the new rationale becomes feelings of love and devotion to another person. Under this rationale the state would be forced to give you and your sister a marriage license if you requested one. I can see the headlines now, "Indiana: The Incest State." Is that what you want for Indiana? Neither do I.