The primary consideration brought up in a federal appeals court in San Francisco is the possible effect of legalizing same-sex marriage to children. In determining the constitutionality of gay marriage, the debate on whether lifting the ban could either damage or benefit the country's young minds continues.

Like Us on Facebook

Defenders of the same-sex marriage bans in Idaho, Nevada, and Hawaii were faced with questions focused on this particular concern during their presentation on Monday before the members of the panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. In earlier rulings, two of the three members of the panel ruled in favor of gay rights. 

The hearing before the 9th Circuit is the first since the U.S. Supreme Court declared the same-sex marriage ban as unconstitutional.

In arguing in favor of the same-sex marriage ban in Idaho, Attorney Monte Stewart explained to the panel that gay marriages would negatively affect the right of a child to be raised by a father and a mother. Stewart said that same-sex marriage would undermine the concept that someone fathering a child should be in a relationship with the mother.

"This is a contest between two different messages," Stewart declared. "The message of man-woman marriage is: 'Men, you're valuable and important in the upbringing of the children you bring into this world. Women, you are valuable and important in the upbringing of children you bring into this world.' Genderless marriage does not send that message. Indeed, it undermines it," he added.

Apart from arguing for opponents of same-sex marriage in Idaho, Stewart also argued in favor of the ban in Nevada. He stated that the states are granted the discretion to decide on whether gay marriage is constitutional or not.

In responding to some of Stewart's claims, Judge Marsha Berzon pointed out that the attorney appears to be implying that families run by same-sex couples are "second-rate". She further said that Stewart was sending the message that same-sex couples head "less desirable families". These statements were then strongly refuted by Stewart.

On the other hand, Deborah Ferguson, a lawyer arguing for the same-sex marriage supporters in Idaho, stated that keeping the ban results in the failure of the state to provide children of gay couples equal protection provided to the children of heterosexual couples. "(They) don't have two legal parents to protect them," she said. "That is sending a powerful message. That tells those children that their parents' marriages aren't worthy of respect. That's a very harsh message," Ferguson argued.

In addition, Attorney Tara Borelli, a lawyer of gay marriage supporters from Nevada, said that the ban relays the idea of inferiority with respect to the status of same-sex couples. Hence, these children are damaged and humiliated by the prejudiced society.

In 2012, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals nullified Proposition 8. According to the proponents of the decision, Proposition 8 discriminated a minority group for no convincing reason. In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the case without providing any ruling with respect to the legalities of same-sex marriage.

Tagssame-sex, marriage, gay marriage, Idaho, Nevada, Monte Stewart