With those things in mind, let's talk about the 2015 Supreme Court case, Obergefell v. Hodges*. This was the case that changed our countries definition of marriage and gave every gay man/woman the right to marry the person they love. Of the nine justices five voted in favor and four filed dissenting opinions. 

Justice Kennedy delivered the majority's opinion and explained, "Far from seeking to devalue marriage,the petitioners seek it for themselves because of their respect—and need—for its privileges and responsibilities." He later continued, "In the late 20th century, following substantial cultural and political developments, same-sex couples began to lead more open and public lives and to establish families. This development was followed by a quite extensive discussion of the issue in both governmental and private sectors and by a shift in public attitudes toward greater tolerance." He then goes on to explain the court's reasoning behind their decisions. Here's where my first concern comes in. He says, "A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families..." 

In an open letter to Justice Kennedy one adult daughter of two gay parents explains her point of view,

"It’s very difficult to speak about this subject, because I love my mom. Most of us children with gay parents do. We also love their partner(s). You don’t hear much from us because, as far as the media are concerned, it’s impossible that we could both love our gay parent(s) and oppose gay marriage.

...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.

... If you ask a child raised by a lesbian couple if they love their two moms, you’ll probably get a resounding “yes!” Ask about their father, and you are in for either painful silence, a confession of gut-wrenching longing, or the recognition that they have a father that they wish they could see more often. The one thing that you will not hear is indifference."**

How can we claim to be "safeguard[ing] children" when that is clearly the opposite affect it is having on so many of them? 

Justice Kennedy briefly addressed my second concern when he says, "Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered."

Unfortunately, these two sentences leave gaping holes in this declaration. He failed to address so many concerns having to do with religious liberties. Justice Roberts points this out when he dissented saying, "Today’s decision... creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority—actually spelled out in the Constitution. 

Respect for sincere religious conviction has led voters and legislators in every State that has adopted same-sex marriage democratically to include accommodations for religious practice. The majority’s decision imposing same-sex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommodations. The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their views of marriage.  The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to “exercise” religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.

Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage—when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage. There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court."

Let's not pretend that these issues won't happen. We all know about the private business owners who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. How long until religions are being taken to court for not treating a same-sex couple the same way they treat opposite-sex couples?

My final concern is how this ruling came about. This is a concern that I share with every single one of the dissenting justices. Justice Roberts says, "But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. ...When decisions are reached through democratic means, some people will inevitably be disappointed with the results. But those whose views do not prevail at least know that they have had their say, and accordingly are—in the tradition of our political culture—reconciled to the result of a fair and honest debate. ...But today the Court puts a stop to all that. By deciding this question under the Constitution, the Court removes it from the realm of democratic decision. Closing debate tends to close minds. As a thoughtful commentator observed about another issue, “The political process was moving . . . , not swiftly enough for advocates of quick, complete change, but majoritarian institutions were listening and acting. Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict.”

I love my gay and lesbian friends. I think they should have the right to love whomever they choose. I believe in agency. I also believe in a child's right to their biological parents. And I believe in the democratic process that this country was designed to exemplify. It is because of these beliefs that I have chosen to defend traditional marriage. 

*Obergefell v. Hodges

**An Open Letter from the Child of a Loving Gay Parent