Short version: the argument by opponents to gay marriage is that gays can’t get accidentally pregnant, therefore they don’t need access to the rights of marriage.
*
In his brief for the defense on why the law should only recognize marriages between opposite-sex couples, Paul D. Clement, a solicitor general under George W. Bush, wrote that traditional marriage laws “reflect a unique social difficulty with opposite-sex couples that is not present with same-sex couples — namely, the undeniable and distinct tendency of opposite-sex relationships to produce unplanned and unintended pregnancies … Unintended children produced by opposite-sex relationships and raised out-of-wedlock would pose a burden on society.”*
Yeah, I was gonna say. If there were any validity to this argument, it would be because the vast majority of hetero couples who experience an unplanned pregnancy then get married.
Except that’s not the case. It’s not the case by a lot.
It also brings us back to the question that if marriage is solely or even primarily for the creation and raising of children, then hetero couples who are unfortunately sterile, who choose to be childless, and who are just past the age where it’s possible should not be allowed to marry. Every time I’ve pointed this out, the response I get is “that’s not the point!”. Um, excuse me, but it is.
The primary purpose of marriage is not to rear children. Marriage exists in healthy, even ideal, forms without children. Marriage is about companionship, about designating one specific person as your end-all-and-be-all and presenting yourself to the rest of the world as one unit. Sure, there are marriages where companionship never existed or was killed off fairly quickly, but these are not marriages that meet with any approval or wish to emulate, and most of them end in divorce.
You know, I’d say I wish these guys would give up all the subterfuge and ridiculous arguments and just say what they thing: “Gay = Gross!”. Except we wouldn’t be able to get any further against that argument than we are with this one, and it would rob of us some serious entertainment.
Or are we going to require a pregnancy test for any woman applying for a marriage license, since there’s no benefit to society if a woman who is not pregnant gets married?
Why is there a benefit to society if a pregnant woman marries a man, but not if she marries a woman? In either case, you have a child not being raised out of wedlock.
Politicians sure do seem to spend a lot of time worrying about the sex other people have and who they’re having it with. Can’t we just go ahead and hire some professional woman and men to visit the congressional offices periodically to relieve their stress over what everybody else is doing?
I don’t think they care about gay rights or SSM or abortion rights or families. They are worried that somebody else is getting something they aren’t. Whatever the next topic involving sex that appears on the horizon, this type will oppose it.
Can’t get worked up about this. It’s got some validity, from a historical context, and it’s not like it’s being offered as the only reason to reserve marriage right for opposite sex marriage. They’re just covering all their bases, as any legal defense should. Remember, if the are going for “Rational Basis” scrutiny, the reason just needs to be stated-- it doesn’t actually have to be “rational”.
However… Knocked Up Lesbians would be an excellent band name!
What are we going to do about those moochers who stay married, even though their children are grown up and they can’t or won’t have any more? It pains me to admit, my parents fall into this category. They will have been married 50 years this summer. Their children are both grown up and don’t need a two-parent family any more. My mom will be 74 this year, so any more children are very unlikely. Why should we let them continue to enjoy the benefits of marriage when they’re not providing any benefit to society?
Even worse, letting old people stay married makes it look like we as a society encourage old people to have sex, and that’s just icky to think about. Do you like thinking about your parents or, worse yet, grandparents having sex?
Since Conservatives defend marriage as being about the birth and raising of children, let’s make it so. In order to defend this position, we will require the following changes to the Institution of Marriage;
Any marriage not resulting in children within 2-3 years of the wedding shall be declared null and void.
Admissions of or determination that there never was any intent to have children in the marriage shall be prosecuted as Felony Fraud.
While there are children of the marriage in the household, both parents must remain within the same household for a minimum of 183 days per year (allowing for work related travel up to 50%)
Sorry, no such thing as Divorce. You are in for the duration of raising your children.
All marriages shall be disolved within 6 months of the last child leaving the home.
If you want to put something like that into law, then I might listen to the idea that gays should not be married (although since lesbians can still give birth, I would still say they can be married under such laws). Otherwise, shut the fuck up about marriage being about procreation, because it is not.
I know people think they are being ever so clever when they post stuff like this, but it’s actually just stupid and shows a considerable lack of understanding about how the legal system works. Well, item #4 does have some validity, but be careful what you ask for. I’m sure many of the anti-SSM folks would be only too happy to make divorce more difficult.