# Gays can't get "Knocked Up," so they shouldn't be allowed to marry. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 29, 2013, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723 "2013-01-29T17:44:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/41 "2013-01-30T03:12:49Z")
On the contrary, it demonstrates that the ostensible purpose of a proposed law can be obviously divorced from the actual intent of the proponent. I gather Chimera’s _intent_ is to mock the proposed law and similar laws, but all he need to satisfy a rational basis test is put in writing that the law’s purpose is to promote the raising of children. It strikes _me_ as commentary, of a sort. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/42 "2013-01-30T04:16:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t agree that people understand the term and are simply issuing witty, urbane commentary on how irrational the rational basis test is. > > The complaints in this thread mirror almost every thread that raises these complains. “Is he therefore proposing a law that forces couples into marriage if they have an unintended pregnancy?” This is not a wry comment on the rational basis test – this is a rebuttal that shows a complete lack of understanding of how the test works. My comment was likely not witty, nor urbane, but I can assure the gathered crowd that I was not issuing a legal opinion. I thought I was tossing off a comment intended to poke fun about how stupid Paul Clement’s proposal was. Of course, I’ve probably made some other fundamental error of law in this, my most recent post. Those with a stick firmly up their ass will no doubt be along soon to inform me of my gross stupidity. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/43 "2013-01-30T04:20:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The complaints in this thread mirror almost every thread that raises these complains. :dubious: Do they really? Gosh, that’s an uncanny coincidence. > [@Bricker](#): > > “Is he therefore proposing a law that forces couples into marriage if they have an unintended pregnancy?” This is not a wry comment on the rational basis test – this is a rebuttal that shows a complete lack of understanding of how the test works. Well, **Bricker** , if it will make you feel better, I’m quite willing to believe that some posters in this thread may have been mocking the proposed argument for its manifest unreasonableness while **also** not fully grasping the precise legal significance of the technical term “rational basis test”. And all of them still sounded more intelligent, witty and sensible than you’ve done so far in this thread. Honestly, **Bricker** , at this point you’re simply failing to see the forest of reasonable scorn for the trees of legal minutiae. Once again, this is a **Pit** thread, where nitpicking imprecise terminology is inadequate to rebut generous wrath. Sure, there’s nothing wrong with nitpicking other posters’ imprecise terminology even in a Pit thread, but it doesn’t mean that you’ve actually refuted anybody’s ranting. You were just so eager to show off the fact that you know the technical legal meaning of “rational basis test” while some other posters don’t that you’ve made a pompous pettifogging legal ass of yourself in the process. ---
**Author:** ![digs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/digs/32/14889_2.png) [@digs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/digs)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/44 "2013-01-30T04:42:15Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > …you’ve made a pompous pettifogging legal ass of yourself in the process. I love this – said this to myself out loud a couple of times. Then tried “pompous pettifogging politicizing pinhead”. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/45 "2013-01-30T11:27:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > This thread is, in almost complete part, a set of strawman arguments that ignore the rational basis test and demonstrate no understanding of how it workd. (John mace’s post being the notable exception). > > Under rational basis analysis, this is not required. > > Under rational basis analysis, this is not required. > > Under rational basis analysis, this is not required. > > Under rational basis analysis, this is not required. > > Under rational basis analysis, this is not required. > > Under rational basis analysis, this is not required. Sexual orientation has been found to be a quasi protected classification. Rational basis does not apply. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/46 "2013-01-30T14:10:17Z")
Let me repeat what another poster said to get to the core of this argument: > [@](#): > > 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. That completely blows away the “knocked up” argument. Completely. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/47 "2013-01-30T14:11:22Z")
> [@digs](#): > > Do you ever have any fun? He’s having alot of fun dodging questions. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/48 "2013-01-30T14:12:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > This thread is, in almost complete part, a set of strawman arguments that ignore the rational basis test and demonstrate no understanding of how it workd. (John mace’s post being the notable exception). Do you agree or disagree with this proposition: “Any couple which cannot produce children should not be allowed to marry.” Yes or no? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/49 "2013-01-30T14:24:45Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Sexual orientation has been found to be a quasi protected classification. Rational basis does not apply. Sorry, just noticed that I wrote protected rather than suspect. Don’t know where that came from. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/50 "2013-01-30T14:58:26Z")
Rational basis _would_ apply. Sexual orientation has been analyzed by SCOTUS under what appears to be a slightly different formulation - “rational basis with bite” - but the court was still ostensibly applying rational basis. > [@Bricker](#): > > This thread is, in almost complete part, a set of strawman arguments that ignore the rational basis test and demonstrate no understanding of how it workd. (John mace’s post being the notable exception). First, rational basis analysis doesn’t work here, because we are dealing with a fundamental right. Second, are you suggesting that _shotgun weddings_ are a legitimate government interest and that opposite-sex-only marriage is reasonably related to that interest? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/51 "2013-01-30T15:03:13Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > On the contrary, it demonstrates that the ostensible purpose of a proposed law can be obviously divorced from the actual intent of the proponent. I gather Chimera’s _intent_ is to mock the proposed law and similar laws, but all he need to satisfy a rational basis test is put in writing that the law’s purpose is to promote the raising of children. > > It strikes _me_ as commentary, of a sort. Actually, it can be even further divorced from the proponent’s intent. Under rational basis analysis, the government can propose a justification for the law after the fact regardless of whether or not there is any evidence that the legislature had it in mind. It just has to be vaguely plausible. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/52 "2013-01-30T15:09:36Z")
When did this shift from a debate about what the law ought to be to one about who would win a lawsuit over it? ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/53 "2013-01-30T15:12:42Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > He’s having alot of fun dodging questions. I’m sorry, but this is a pet peeve of mine. This is an [Alot](http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/550_alotAlix.jpg) /pet peeve. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/54 "2013-01-30T15:15:39Z")
> [@](#): > > When did this shift from a debate about what the law ought to be to one about who would win a lawsuit over it? I don’t think it’s a debate about who would win a lawsuit over it. Legal analysis of sexual orientation classification is hamstrung by SCOTUS’ fence-sitting over whether it’s a protected class or not. It’s important to remember that rational basis is a very low standard, and that Prop 8 will almost certainly be upheld if it _is_ applied. I am just a little shocked that anyone, anywhere - much less the lawyers writing the briefs, and our friend Bricker - thinks the shotgun wedding argument isn’t goofy. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/55 "2013-01-30T15:38:42Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Rational basis _would_ apply. Sexual orientation has been analyzed by SCOTUS under what appears to be a slightly different formulation - “rational basis with bite” - but the court was still ostensibly applying rational basis. Not according to the Second Circuit in Windsor V United States. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/56 "2013-01-30T15:40:03Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > When did this shift from a debate about what the law ought to be to one about who would win a lawsuit over it? When it was Brickerfied. If it favors Republicans, then all that matters is whether a legal rationale can be found for it. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/57 "2013-01-30T15:57:50Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > I’m sorry, but this is a pet peeve of mine. > > This is an [Alot](http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/550_alotAlix.jpg) > > /pet peeve. I break alot of rules like that. ---
**Author:** ![redtail23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/3e96dc/32.png) [@redtail23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/redtail23)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/58 "2013-01-30T16:20:18Z")
For the record, **Bricker** is on record as supporting gay marriage rights. He’s also on record as popping up prodigiously to show his pompous pettifogging pedantic legal ass whenever possible to promote perfect understanding of proper process and phraseology. Whether or not that’s what anyone else is talking about. Carry on! ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/59 "2013-01-30T16:43:56Z")
> [@redtail23](#): > > For the record, **Bricker** is on record as supporting gay marriage rights. > > He’s also on record as popping up prodigiously to show his pompous pettifogging pedantic legal ass whenever possible to promote perfect understanding of proper process and phraseology. > > Whether or not that’s what anyone else is talking about. > > Carry on! Yes, let’s carry on. Where were we? ---
**Author:** ![TroutMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/troutman/32/6721_2.png) [@TroutMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TroutMan)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/60 "2013-01-30T17:12:18Z")
I think we were talking about people marrying their pets. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723.md?page=4)