# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/81 "2013-01-30T20:31:22Z")
“By blaming you, it takes the blame off themselves for wasting their own time and sets up a future of voluntarily giving up their personal responsibility. They know if they say, ‘I wasted my own time.’ the correct follow-up is to go do something productive, but if it’s ‘You wasted my time.’ the natural follow-up is, ‘Maybe this cat video over here will be more responsible with my time.’” Vi Hart ---
**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, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/82 "2013-01-30T20:38:47Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > “Reasonable” opens an even more yawning chasm between the technical and normally understood definitions of the word. > > I proposed “rationalized basis” – the arguments advanced as points of law are often, as in this case, textbook examples of the common plain-English understanding of the words “rationalize”, “rationalized”, and “rationalization”. So call it “grue”. What difference does it make? ---
**Author:** ![Anne\_Neville](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Anne\_Neville](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anne_Neville)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/83 "2013-01-30T20:50:59Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Under rational basis analysis, this is not required. Well, then, the law is an ass. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/84 "2013-01-30T20:58:36Z")
Can anyone give an example of something for which a rational basis cannot be concocted? ---
**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, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/85 "2013-01-30T21:15:59Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > Can anyone give an example of something for which a rational basis cannot be concocted? I can hear the crinkly old pages of several law school texts being opened. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/86 "2013-01-30T21:19:40Z")
If I’m reading this thread correctly, it’s probably difficult-to-impossible. “Rational basis” apparently gives a wide enough latitude that no fig leaf is too implausible to protect a law from being overturned as capricious and arbitrary. If Post 51 above is accurate, it would appear that even if the enacting body places right in the text that it’s capricious and arbitrary, it could be defended with a “rational basis” argument thought up well after the fact. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/87 "2013-01-30T21:21:06Z")
> [@Anne\_Neville](#): > > Well, then, the law is an ass. You’re not the first to make this observation. I would say in this case that society changes over time, and the law is seldom at the forefront of change. As a written code, we’d expect the law to change in response to society’s changes, rather than change first to compel society’s changes. After all, the law comes from the people, via their elected representatives - right? The steps to change should therefore be the people, then the law. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/88 "2013-01-30T21:22:30Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > Can anyone give an example of something for which a rational basis cannot be concocted? Sure. A law requiring parking meters to be paid a double fee when used by a left-handed person. Or did you want a real-life example? ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/89 "2013-01-30T21:28:06Z")
Traditional left-hander laws reflect a unique social difficulty with left-handed drivers that is not present with right-handed drivers — namely, the undeniable and distinct tendency of left-handers to die, on average, nine years sooner than their right-handed counterparts … The resultant loss of city parking revenue would pose a burden on society.” ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/90 "2013-01-30T21:28:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sure. A law requiring parking meters to be paid a double fee when used by a left-handed person. > > Or did you want a real-life example? That’s perfectly rational. Southpaws are dangerous, reprehensible bastards one and all - and I should know. ---
**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, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/91 "2013-01-30T21:31:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sure. A law requiring parking meters to be paid a double fee when used by a left-handed person. I know - a law that requires parking meters to be paid a double fee when used by a gay couple who can’t have children, but only a single fee by a hetero couple who can’t have children. Wait, no, not quite, but I’ve almost got it. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/92 "2013-01-30T21:37:13Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > Can anyone give an example of something for which a rational basis cannot be concocted? The former Amendment II to te Constitution of the State of Colorado. (_Vide_ Romer v. Evans.) ==== **Rational basis:** There is something called the _ **presumption of constitutionality** _. What this means, in simple, is that the court does not automatically examine every statute cited before it, e.g., the requirement to have had your vehicle inspected for a list of common safety issues within the past 12 months, to determine if the legislature had the power to enact such a law under tje relevant constitution(s). Rather, it gives deference to the legislature as a coordinate branch of government to have enacted laws that are constitutionally permissible. If you claim that a given law is unconstitutional, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that claim to the satisfaction of the court. This rebuts the presumption, and failing such a challenge and proof, the presumption stands. In the absence of something triggering intermediate or strict scrutiny, the courts will therefore look for a rationale that the legislature could have used to determine that the statute in question deserved to be enacted. Ut need not be stated in the legislative findings or in debate on the law; what matters is that there is some possible legally sound reason why the legislature might have enacted it. U.e., the legislature had, or could have had, a rational basis for passing the law. When, however, the law works a discriminatory wrong against some definable group, which need not be a traditional suspect classification, e.g., gays, Mormons, Japanese-Americans, women past childbearing age, etc., then the courts look to see if the legislature first articulated a rational basis for passing the law, and second showed how the need for the law supersedes the wrong done the group. This is rational basis with bite, as I understand it. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/93 "2013-01-30T21:57:34Z")
Wow, these people are going to lose their court case _so hard…_ ---
**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, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/94 "2013-01-30T22:51:07Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > When, however, the law works a discriminatory wrong against some definable group, which need not be a traditional suspect classification, e.g., gays, Mormons, Japanese-Americans, women past childbearing age, etc., then the courts look to see if the legislature first articulated a rational basis for passing the law, and second showed how the need for the law supersedes the wrong done the group. This is rational basis with bite, as I understand it. Except for gays, classifications burdening any of those groups would get heightened scrutiny. Alienage and the exercise of a fundamental right (religion in this case) classifications trigger strict scrutiny. Gender classifications get intermediate scrutiny. Classifications based on sexual orientation are _sui generis_ in this regard. We can’t really articulate what the rational basis with bite test is because SCOTUS hasn’t told us yet; in Romer, Kennedy purported to be applying ordinary rational basis analysis. [QUOTE=Buck Godot] Can anyone give an example of something for which a rational basis cannot be concocted? [/QUOTE] A zoning ordinance prohibiting group homes for the mentally retarded. > [@](#): > > The record does not reveal any rational basis for believing that the proposed group home would pose any special threat to the city’s legitimate interests. Requiring the permit in this case appears to rest on an irrational prejudice against the mentally retarded, including those who would occupy the proposed group home and who would live under the closely supervised and highly regulated conditions expressly provided for by state and federal law. > > City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 433 (1985) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/95 "2013-01-30T23:52:38Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > Traditional left-hander laws reflect a unique social difficulty with left-handed drivers that is not present with right-handed drivers — namely, the undeniable and distinct tendency of left-handers to die, on average, nine years sooner than their right-handed counterparts … The resultant loss of city parking revenue would pose a burden on society.” Typically, under rational basis analysis, one cannot propose alternate, more effective methods of reaching the stated goal as a path towards invalidating the the method the state has chosen. In this case, however, the path directly contradicts the stated goal: since left-handers die sooner, and the stated goal is to increase revenue… then the city should raise the parking meter fees for right-handed people. ---
**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 31, 2013, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/96 "2013-01-31T03:19:48Z")
Ah, but the stated goal is not to _maximize_ revenue, but merely to _increase_ it, which a fee-doubling for left-handed users would indeed accomplish. Stop reading things into the law which aren’t there. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/97 "2013-01-31T04:36:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In this case, however, the path directly contradicts the stated goal: since left-handers die sooner, and the stated goal is to increase revenue… then the city should raise the parking meter fees for right-handed people. [🙂](http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/331/255/d92.gif) ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/98 "2013-01-31T14:53:42Z")
or maybe just institute a $12 per use Internet Pedantry fee. ---
**Author:** ![Double\_Foolscap](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85e7bf/32.png) [@Double\_Foolscap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Double_Foolscap)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/99 "2013-01-31T15:13:20Z")
Should “fee” be capitalized as well? _cha-ching_ ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2013, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723/100 "2013-02-01T04:37:40Z")
> [@silenus](#): > > [The latest defense of Prop. 8.](http://www.salon.com/2013/01/28/gay_marriage_opponents_use_knocked_up_defense_in_supreme_court_case/) > > 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.”\* > > The mind boggles. The guy was dealt a pretty crappy hand trying to defend the constitutionality of DOMA is like trying to prove the constitutionality of a poll tax. But if someone paid you $2 million dollars, you might take the job too. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gays-cant-get-knocked-up-so-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-marry/648723.md?page=6)