Children like me need a voice in gay marriage debate: Column Why I co-wrote amicus brief backing idea that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

Katy Faust | USATODAY

My mother has been in a committed relationship with another woman for nearly 30 years. And I am the co-author of a Supreme Court amicus brief in favor of allowing states to affirm marriage as the union of one man and one woman in their laws.

Given the fact that my mother and I enjoy a close, loving relationship, and I believe that every American — gay or straight — should be permitted to form consensual adult unions of their choosing, how could I take that position?

Buried under a pile of tweets, blogs and articles that fixate on the religious-liberty side of this debate, you'll find the often silent "rational basis" for heterosexual marriage. The other side of the debate is populated by those who cannot speak for, let alone organize, themselves: children.

Historically, marriage laws have served to reinforce the relationship between parents and children, particularly, to attach fathers to their children. It takes a man and woman to make a child, and that happens to be the ideal settingfor the nurturing of the child. Thus, encouraging norms of permanence and exclusivity in heterosexual relationships, the place where babies are made, and promoting that association above other adult relationships is good policy in terms of the rights and well-being of children.

This is not a philosophical hypothesis or randomly chosen legal argument on my part. My beliefs aren't supported merely by research and history, but also by my own childhood experiences.

That said, there is no denying that many heterosexuals have made an utter embarrassment of marriage vows. It's a crying shame that today, 41% of our nation's children are born outside the safety net of marriage, and we all, no matter what our sexual orientation, must start behaving like adults and return our focus to the fundamental, most basic rights of children.

Children have a right to their mother and father, who happen to be the two adults with whom they innately long to be in relationship. In the pantheon of rights, and pseudo rights, I submit that the right to one's mother and father is the most self-evident right of all — save perhaps parents' right to their natural children. It's a right recognized in Article 7 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Being deprived a relationship with one or both natural parents causes emotional damage and, statistically, an increased likelihood of physical, psychological and economic harm.

Yet here we are, barreling down the path of endorsing a family structure that will guarantee life-long loss for children. That structure deprives a child of a relationship in the home with one natural parent often to suit the desires of two adults in a same-sex relationship. And a court-imposed redefinition of marriage nationwide will only increase the frequency of this loss.

Redefining marriage redefines parenthood. Though that might sound fine if you are beyond the age of consent, most children will tell you that if they could order their own world, it would be one in which they are being loved and raised by their mother and father. Just because brokenness can befall children in myriad of ways, it does not stand to reason that we should promote a family structure that guarantees brokenness for children. Society and public policy should never encourage fatherlessness or motherlessness.

Despite having diverse stories and voices, the six of us who filed amicus briefs with the Supreme Court have two things in common: First, we agree that it is in the best interest of children specifically, and society at large, to promote marriage between one man and one woman. Second, we have all been subjected to some measure of intimidation for sharing our stories.

We've faced threats to our jobs, harassment of family and friends, and abusive language from those who espouse openness and tolerance. In our current political climate, it's easy to understand why children with gay parents might not feel comfortable voicing misgivings about their upbringings.

Some speculate that I must hate my mother because I do not support same-sex marriage. In truth, my support of man-woman marriage is based on the reality that two men could never have replaced her. The mother-daughter bond that we share is precious and distinct, and I would not wish the loss of such a relationship on any child, especially in the name of progress.

Children do best, and by extension society flourishes, when kids have a relationship with both their mother and father whenever possible. This is not only the "rational basis," but also a very compelling basis, for states to affirm marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It's one on which we all should agree.

Katy Faust is one of six children raised by a parent in a same-sex relationship who filed amicus briefs at the Supreme Court in support of the freedom of states to affirm marriage as the union of one man and one woman. She serves on the Academic Council of the International Children's Rights Institute.

In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors. To read more columns like this, go to the Opinion front page.