In Iowa, there is a push to vote out of office Iowa Supreme Court Justice David Wiggins for his part of the unanimous 2009 Varnum vs. Brien decision striking down a state law banning same-sex marriage. Three other justices were in 2010 voted off the Iowa Supreme Court for their support.

I do not know how to argue that same-sex marriage should be illegal. But, I feel I can reasonably agree that it is wrong.

I am of the opinion that when God says something is wrong (sin) then there is a really good reason for it, and it is much more than symbolic. Sometimes God's reasons are not always clear, and sometimes people  reject what the Bible says simply because it is in the Bible, ignoring whether there is good reasons behind it. It's a terrible thing to hold that position in a church-and-state argument, because it relies on one to simply use ignorance as their defense.

In the case of same-sex marriage, there is evidence that shows that a child with heterosexual parents is generally better off, that they benefit from growing up with both a male and female role model, seeing how the two are alike and different. That's not to say that children reared by two men or two women can't become productive members of society, but that, overall, children of heterosexual couples live happier, healthier lives.

Also, it is only because of heterosexual relationships that any of us are here, is it not? This is a profound truth. Without heterosexual relationships, there would simply be no next generation.

Are we of the mindset that we should allow gay marriage because there are plenty of people around who will produce our next generation? That would make same-sex marriage a luxury, borne out of the abundance of people on this earth -- we are not in danger of extinction.

Let's take this to the other extreme to see if we can find a point of reference. Imagine the human race on the verge of extinction. Society would likely order anyone who was able to help repopulate the planet to do so. Same-sex relationships would fall out of favor. But how large would the population have to grow before our society would, once again, allow same-sex relationships? Can anyone define a number? Of course not.

So circumstances offer us no reference point on this issue. That said, circumstances should not be the only guide for determining what is right and wrong. We also need a set of standards. And if the two disagree, then the standards ought to win out.

When we say same-sex marriage isn't hurting anyone, do we understand how many children will never be born and, thus, never experience the gift of life and the pleasure of friends and family? Being able to reproduce is a noble responsibility, though our society places less value on it today. Of all the resources that are running low, people are not. Are people a resource? Ask anyone trying to run a political campaign, or man a concession stand for the booster club, or find a last-minute babysitter.

I think those reasons are why voters see Wiggins' vote on same-sex marriage as profoundly wrong, even if they are unable to articulate it, and thus feel it necessary to vote him out of office. So it would not just be religion, but reasoning.