“The other side argues that you can’t choose who you love and that a union between two men or two women is equal to that of one man and one woman,” King said. “But these are the same arguments that could be used to promote marriage between fathers and daughters, mothers and sons, or even polygamist relationships.”

A historic Senate hearing on a possible repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act revealed a large divide on beliefs about the definition of marriage but also showcased opposing arguments on a subject traditionalists say is often misunderstood — the purpose of marriage and government’s role in it.

Wednesday’s hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee marked the first time any Senate or House committee ever held a hearing on overturning the 1996 law, which defines marriage for federal purposes as between a man and a woman and gives states the option of not recognizing another state’s gay “marriages.” Gay groups view its reversal as the first step toward redefining marriage in all 50 states.

The Respect for Marriage Act (S. 598), endorsed by President Obama, would overturn the 15-year-old-law, often called “DOMA.” It has very little chance of passing in the current Congress.

“I think what we have is a situation where a lot of folks simply don’t understand what marriage is,” Edward Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, told senators.

Whelan, who supports the ’96 law, said marriage logically is tied to procreation and childrearing, which can only lead to a traditional definition. Austin R. Nimmocks, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group, made a similar argument. Nimmocks’ group also supports DOMA.

“Entrance to marry has never been conditioned upon a couple’s actual ability and desire to find happiness together, their level of financial entanglement or their actual personal dedication to each other,” Nimmocks said, refuting common arguments for redefining marriage. “Rather, marriage laws stem from the fact that children are the product of the sexual relationships between men and woman, and that both fathers and mothers are viewed to be necessary for children.”

The government has an interest in defining marriage as between a man and a woman, Nimmocks said, because it has an interest in the future generation and it recognizes the unique and complementary differences of mothers and fathers. He quoted the 1996 Senate Judiciary Committee report which argued that society has a “deep and abiding interest in encouraging responsible procreation and child-rearing.”

“While some may argue that times have changed, they cannot credibly argue that humanity, as a gendered species, has changed,” Nimmocks said. “Men and women still compose the two great halves of humanity, men and women are uniquely different, and men and women still play important and irreplaceable roles in the family.”

Opponents of the Defense of Marriage Act, though, argued that the law has prevented same-sex couples from receiving the federal legal benefits of marriage. The federal government does not recognize the “marriages” from the five states — soon to be six — where gay “marriage” is legal. Several gay individuals testified before the Senate committee.

[Editor’s note: This article is incomplete. The source for this document was originally published on bpnews.net—however, the original URL is no longer available.]