we have today.
             Recently, a court in Hawaii sat down to hear all of the arguments against gay marriage, and, surprisingly enough, the arguments did not withstand. When the argument of "marriage is an institution between one man and one woman" (Bidstrup) was made it was the easiest to shoot down. The court asked who defined marriage, and where those people got the right to define in. Former President Clinton signed a law called the Defense of Marriage Act defining marriage as being a union between a man and a woman, but that does not make it the right definition. The bible says the same thing – marriage is between a man and a woman- but what about the separation of church and state? According to President Bush " 'our government should respect every person and protect the institution of marriage. There is not a contradiction between these responsibilities.'" (Transcript) He said that quote while he was purposing an amendment to ban same sex marriages. I took that quote to mean that by respecting every single person one is also respecting his or her right to wed, not caring if he or she is marrying someone of the same or opposite sex. The next argument was that "marriage is for procreation." (Bidstrup) But to procreate, both the man and the woman have to be fertile; wouldn't that mean banning infertile people from getting married as well? That idea is ludicrous and would not withstand any kind of scrutiny in any court. That argument led to the next – "Same-sex couples aren't the optimum environment in which to raise children."(Bistrup) This is where even if a same sex couple adopted a child; the child might be raised to be gay or lesbian. That is not true, most gay men and women knew they were attracted to the same sex from the time they were children themselves. It has been speculated by many scientists that being attracted to the same sex is in a person's DNA and i...