I think it was 2006 or so when DOMA came up in congress for review. It ended up being tabled at the time, but at the encouragement of family members, I wrote a couple of senators. I didn't really know anything about the issue, then, and so the best argument I could come up with against gay marriage sounded very much like, "Um...because of....reasons. And stuff." I did feel a bit like a hypocrite for writing my representatives about something with such inarticulateness.
In a way, I'm almost glad that this issue is now so close to home, due to Judge Shelby's recent ruling, that I can't sit on the fence or avoid it any more, because it has forced me to really read a lot about it and examine the issue from multiple angles. I think I can say that I am now able to articulate real, reasonable concerns that make valid sense, instead of saying, "Um, 'cuz the Prophet says so."
To outline some, but not all, concerns simply and concisely:
1) Concern that by making homosexual unions legally equal to heterosexual unions, we will see a rise in genderless parenting. What do we know about genderless parenting? Not much. But we know a lot about fatherlessness, and it is not good. President Obama is trying to push for more men to become more involved with their children, but it's difficult to take him seriously if he has also pushed for legislation that basically makes male parents optional.
2) Concern that this move will increase third-party reproduction, which is a fairly new practice. We know very little about how the children created feel about the method of their conception. Reports like those found at anonymousus.org, an anonymous forum for donor-conceived people, should be cause for worry. Third-party reproduction is largely unregulated and fraught with legal wrangling. Gestational carriers and egg donors are particularly hard-hit, but sperm donors are not immune, either.
3) Concern that children are getting the short end of the stick. There is so much we don't know about how children who grow up with homosexual parents fare in later life. Studies that show they turn out equally as well or better have inherent flaws (small sample size, etc), and it is difficult for social scientists to obtain funding to study the issue in more depth because of its intensely political nature. I came across this article some time ago, written by a man raised by two women. If his story is to be believed, he did not exactly have an idyllic childhood.
4) This guy, Mark Regnerus, suggests ways in which broader culture could possibly change as a result of widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage. If we accept his research findings at face value, it doesn't paint a very good picture. But how are we to know whether we can accept it at face value without more data, which does not currently exist?
5) My biggest concern: the majority of advocates for gay rights do not answer the other concerns, instead countering that "It's mean not to let them marry," ie a focus on the desires and wants of the adults instead of a focus on the rights of children to be raised by their mother and father. The research is very clear that children in intact biological families fare the best. I don't believe it is prudent to say two men or two women are exactly the same, socially, as a man and a woman when it is clearly not the same. A secondary concern to this lies in the swarm of ad hominem attacks against those foolish enough to question popular opinion in public. "You must be a fundamentally horrible person with poor hygiene if you don't think the same way I do." I feel that these are legitimate concerns, and I don't appreciate that my concerns are being met with insults instead of actual dialogue.
On the other side of the coin, I believe very strongly that sex should be kept very firmly within marriage, because you should take legal and social responsibility for the person you are sleeping with. How to reconcile the happiness of a hypothetical couple, Peter and Curtis, with the human rights of children in their home, then, becomes my personal focus. Where is their mother? If they are from Peter's first marriage to a woman, how often do they get to see her? The Husband will tell you that being raised by divorced parents is no picnic, so that's already a big challenge they've got to deal with. If they are donor conceived, carried to term by a gestational carrier, what do they know about their biological mother's family? Do they have her medical history? Are they aware of half-siblings? How will they fare without an adult female mother-figure in the home? On a fundamental level, is it possible for two men to play the same role in a child's life as a mother-figure, biological or otherwise?
It is a labyrinth.
ETA 9-9-15: Closing comments. Too much else happening to be interested in this conversation right now. My blog is my own, and it's kind of like my house. I do what I want.