That’s not new.
Plenty of people in the female half of Straight Marriages can’t, either.
It was a parody…
Far as that goes, it was a pretty clever parody.
I don’t know of a successful incident, but it was attempted. Asbury Park - Home
Somebody should point out to this guy that unintentionally-pregnant couples still have the option of a civil union.
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.
To be fair, when you’re dealing with irrationality coming from people who used to serve the highest office in the land, a little irrationality in return isn’t unwarranted. 
I think there’s a natural tendency to confuse “rational basis”, which seems to be a technical term simply meaning “a reason that bears some plausible semantic relationship to the position in question rather than being a totally unrelated non sequitur”, with “rational” in the ordinary-language sense of “reasonable, sensible, consistent in its implications”.
Or alternatively, people just enjoy mocking legal technicalities when they stray too far from common sense.
I’m sure you’re right.
On a board with membership supposedly united by a desire to eradicate ignorance, however, the reaction that involves championing such confusion instead of pillorying it is still not clear to me.
I think everyone but you understood that these suggestions are tongue in cheek. Satire is a common means of pillorying an irrational position.
Well, if this were a GQ or GD thread, I think your dismay at the idea of posters being somewhat careless about the precise meaning of a legal technical term in order to jeer at the position it’s being used to support would have more weight.
This being the Pit, however, and the argument in question being very fair game for jeers as inadequately “rational” in the ordinary-language sense of the term, I would rule that the Pitizens of this thread have a compelling interest in the mockery of stupid and unfair homophobic discrimination that outweighs the interest of persnickety nitpicking lawyers in upholding the purity of legal terminology. 
Incidentally, I’ve been in relationships with men whom I could have accidentally gotten pregnant.
It’s more important for Bricker to display his awesome intelligence than to notice when he’s being a fool.
Nah, conservative legal theory holds that if you can get it pregnant, it’s a woman. Do not bewilder the legal mind with the complexities of actual human biology, please.
But it’s so difficult to avoid!
Do you ever have any fun?
I think he is.
I gather you’re not deigning to address the larger point. The ignorance being challenged here is that of the homophobic impulse to pass a law like this in the first place. That the law could be passed as written and even survive legal challenge is obvious and I submit that your eight or nine repetitions thus far need not be followed by more of the same.
Fine, the legal concept of “rational basis” need not involve rationality in the common use of the word. I propose the common application be called “reasonable basis”, hopefully sparing us further prevarication and tangents. This proposed law has no reasonable basis. It may have a rational basis, if a court says it does.
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.
I agree. And there’s plenty of commentary that could make that point.
Indignantly asking why the proponents don’t pass other, more restrictive laws isn’t that commentary.