Can any arguments withstand judicial scrutiny on the issue of same-sex “marriage”? That’s the question being asked more and more as judge after judge strikes down state marriage protection amendments as unconstitutional.

In one of the most recent decisions, by Judge Richard Posner, in which Judge Posner struck down both the Indiana and Wisconsin marriage protection amendments, the question of judicial scrutiny is front and center.

Judge Posner has, seemingly flipped flopped on the issue of same-sex “marriage” and now has no trouble shooting down state voter-approved laws. A recent article notes the change in Posner:

“Posner was clearly leaving himself wiggle room on the issue, and has used it. At some point between 1998 and 2012, the Blade notes, Posner changed his mind about same-sex marriage, announcing the change in a rambling posting on his blog that cited his newfound conclusions (based in part, it seems, on a Wikipedia entry).”

Now that Posner has changed his mind it seems easy for him to find loop holes and other holes in the arguments used to defend traditional marriage. Regardless of Judge Posner’s odd assessment of the arguments there is sound logic and common sense in defending traditional marriage.

Though I am a Christian and would eagerly defend traditional marriage on theological grounds, I understand that others would not. I recognize that some would say marriage laws should not be based on religious convictions. Fine, but let me warn that all laws are based on morality. The question then becomes whose morality they are based upon. Is it better to base our laws on the morality of the atheist, the agnostic, the progressive liberal, or the conservative Christian that hold the same views our Founder’s did?

But, putting religion aside there is still plenty of reason to support traditional marriage.

In a very informative article at the Daily Caller several of the arguments in favor of same-sex “marriage” were presented and refuted. Arguments such as procreation and sterile couples, interracial marriage, and adoption were shown to be weak arguments in favor of same-sex “marriage.” Furthermore, those same arguments were shown to support traditional marriage.

But, one of the most widely used arguments in favor of marriage redefinition was given considerable attention. Anyone that has engaged in any conversations regarding marriage has faced the argument “how does same-sex ‘marriage’ harm traditional marriage?” The author shared at least three ways traditional marriage is harmed by redefining marriage. They are:

1) Marriage laws should buttress the best family format for nurturing a child into a well-adjusted adult: one with both a mother and a father.

2) LGBT people, for the most part, do not believe fidelity is an essential part of a proper marriage (just ask them) – and adding an entire class of people who don’t agree with a basic premise of marriage will inevitably change marriage — and not for the better.

3) Less significant, but easy to demonstrate, is the harm gay marriage causes to traditionally religious people.

These are easily proven problems that marriage redefining causes for traditional marriage. First is the fact that children deserve a mother and a father. It takes a man and a woman to create a child and it is in the best interest of the child to have both the mother and father present in the life of that child. Arguing that single family homes are on the rise is not helpful. Just because a problem exists does not mean we should compound it. If fatherless homes are a problem for the black community then they are equally a problem for the homosexual community (along with motherless homes).

Next is the issue of fidelity. There can be no doubt that homosexuals do not view fidelity as inherent and essential in the marriage relationship. Study after study concludes that homosexuals are quick to seek polyamorous relationships. This undergirds the strength of marriage and contributes to divorce, abuse, depression and other ills. Why do we as a society want to promote that?

But, and perhaps most personal for me, is the fact that marriage redefinition threatens religious people. Only the most naïve and ignorant would dare argue that redefining marriage has had a negative impact on the religious community. Stories like the photographer in New Mexico, florist in Washington, baker in Colorado, and farmers in New York are just the tip of the iceberg. The reality is that these incidents will become more frequent and will ultimately culminate in the government demanding acceptance, support, and celebration of homosexuality on the part of every person – religious or not.

Will we wait until pastors are being jailed for refusing to perform a same-sex ceremony before we realize things have gone too far?

Judge Posner might not have thought much of the arguments used to defend traditional marriage in Indiana and Wisconsin – and maybe they weren’t the best arguments. But the truth is that there is plenty of reasons, solid, competent reasons to defend traditional marriage. Keeping kids from potentially harmful adoption situations is a great reason. Strengthening the fidelity in marriage is another great reason. Making sure people with deeply held religious convictions are not harmed is a particular priority for me.

Ignoring these reasons shows a bias in the discussion. We don’t solve anything by enhancing problems like single parent household. We don’t do what is best for our kids by depriving them of a mother or a father. These are the issues that need to be front and center in this discussion.