Marriage Is Not About Procreation

[one...two...tree 2,762]

by Titania Kumeh, Mother Jones

I read the entire 164-page transcript of this week's closing arguments for the Prop. 8 trial, which will determine whether gays can marry in California. Here's everything you need to know:

On Wednesday, Charles Cooper (the attorney defending the state's ban on gay marriages) continued to fling fallacious appeals to tradition, including his signature "marriage is solely for procreation" schtick. Judge Vaughn Walker didn't buy it. Ted Olson, "the godfather of the conservative legal movement" (see also: the attorney fighting against Prop. 8), skillfully refuted it.

Olson hit the discriminative nail right on its bigoted head when he said "people passed Proposition 8 because they don't—they think gays are unusual." Cooper disputed this claim by saying voters believe that "society would come to an end" if gays married since "the central purpose of marriage in virtually all societies and at all times has been to channel potentially procreative sexual relationships into enduring stable unions to increase the likelihood that any offspring will be raised by the man and woman who brought them into the world."

Yes, Cooper really did say that in one breath. And he said it with all the logical holes you see here, since state laws generally don't bar straight couples from marrying if they don't want children or can't conceive, which Judge Walker noted. Walker also pointed out that the state generally doesn't care whether a child is conceived in wedlock, by accident, or through a one-night stand, whether via in vitro fertilization, surrogacy, or some other way. The state only cares that a child is taken care of once born, which adoption by gay married couples would help to do. How did Cooper fare after that, you ask? Spoiler alert: Not well.

When asked to supply concrete evidence that regulating marriage would promote "responsible procreation," Cooper said, "you don't have to have evidence of this point." Cooper then contended that same-sex marriage jeopardizes the survival of mankind by jeopardizing the way nature intended things to be. (Too bad homosexuality occurs in nature, which ends that paltry excuse.)

Olson then pointed out that the end-of-the-human-race argument assumes that every man and woman is gay, and that on hearing the words "same-sex marriage is legal," suddenly the majority of society will realize they've been in the closet all along! Gay people account for about 10 percent or less of the population, and obviously some do conceive by using some of the alternative methods mentioned above. But in truth, the downfall of humanity is unlikely to be due to a lack of conception. And if the success of traditional heterosexual marriage is a reason to maintain its man-woman status, here's a heads up that its sanctity was infiltrated (PDF) a while ago. The US—whether the majority is aware of it or not—has already redefined marriage.

Some debate on how sexual orientation is determined—is it genetic or learned?—went on. After that thought exercise, the question became: How can any government justify the unconstitutional practice of segregation? Olson said it best: "Marriage, the Supreme Court has said again and again, is a component of liberty, privacy, association, spirituality and autonomy. It is the right of individuals, not an indulgence dispensed by the State of California, or any state, to favored classes of citizens which could easily be withdrawn if the state were to change its mind about procreation. It is not a right belonging to the State of California." Score!

Even if the California Supreme Court supports Prop. 8, which is unlikely, the US Supreme Court may rule that state laws barring gay marriages are unconstitutional. Just as it did in similar cases back in 1967 and 1978, when lawyers likewise argued that interracial marriages would destroy society.

Walker is expected to deliver his ruling in July or later. Stay tuned!

Titania Kumeh is an editorial intern at Mother Jones.

link

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

But we can still practice procreating, right?

[trillium13 84]

So much grasping at straws. Pathetic. Too bad so many people actually seem to buy into all that #######.

It sounds kind of like this nonsense:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull

I'm in a heterosexual marriage, and I have no intention of procreating. Society is doomed.

[natty bumppo 297]

aww ... ** ...

[SuperDuper! 230]

aww ... ** ...

awesome post, dude....

[SMR 368]

by Titania Kumeh, Mother Jones

I read the entire 164-page transcript of this week's closing arguments for the Prop. 8 trial, which will determine whether gays can marry in California. Here's everything you need to know:

On Wednesday, Charles Cooper (the attorney defending the state's ban on gay marriages) continued to fling fallacious appeals to tradition, including his signature "marriage is solely for procreation" schtick. Judge Vaughn Walker didn't buy it. Ted Olson, "the godfather of the conservative legal movement" (see also: the attorney fighting against Prop. 8), skillfully refuted it.

Olson hit the discriminative nail right on its bigoted head when he said "people passed Proposition 8 because they don't—they think gays are unusual." Cooper disputed this claim by saying voters believe that "society would come to an end" if gays married since "the central purpose of marriage in virtually all societies and at all times has been to channel potentially procreative sexual relationships into enduring stable unions to increase the likelihood that any offspring will be raised by the man and woman who brought them into the world."

Yes, Cooper really did say that in one breath. And he said it with all the logical holes you see here, since state laws generally don't bar straight couples from marrying if they don't want children or can't conceive, which Judge Walker noted. Walker also pointed out that the state generally doesn't care whether a child is conceived in wedlock, by accident, or through a one-night stand, whether via in vitro fertilization, surrogacy, or some other way. The state only cares that a child is taken care of once born, which adoption by gay married couples would help to do. How did Cooper fare after that, you ask? Spoiler alert: Not well.

When asked to supply concrete evidence that regulating marriage would promote "responsible procreation," Cooper said, "you don't have to have evidence of this point." Cooper then contended that same-sex marriage jeopardizes the survival of mankind by jeopardizing the way nature intended things to be. (Too bad homosexuality occurs in nature, which ends that paltry excuse.)

Olson then pointed out that the end-of-the-human-race argument assumes that every man and woman is gay, and that on hearing the words "same-sex marriage is legal," suddenly the majority of society will realize they've been in the closet all along! Gay people account for about 10 percent or less of the population, and obviously some do conceive by using some of the alternative methods mentioned above. But in truth, the downfall of humanity is unlikely to be due to a lack of conception. And if the success of traditional heterosexual marriage is a reason to maintain its man-woman status, here's a heads up that its sanctity was infiltrated (PDF) a while ago. The US—whether the majority is aware of it or not—has already redefined marriage.

Some debate on how sexual orientation is determined—is it genetic or learned?—went on. After that thought exercise, the question became: How can any government justify the unconstitutional practice of segregation? Olson said it best: "Marriage, the Supreme Court has said again and again, is a component of liberty, privacy, association, spirituality and autonomy. It is the right of individuals, not an indulgence dispensed by the State of California, or any state, to favored classes of citizens which could easily be withdrawn if the state were to change its mind about procreation. It is not a right belonging to the State of California." Score!

Even if the California Supreme Court supports Prop. 8, which is unlikely, the US Supreme Court may rule that state laws barring gay marriages are unconstitutional. Just as it did in similar cases back in 1967 and 1978, when lawyers likewise argued that interracial marriages would destroy society.

Walker is expected to deliver his ruling in July or later. Stay tuned!

Titania Kumeh is an editorial intern at Mother Jones.

link

All of arguments specific to the gay marriage issue aside, I think the way this case is being handled is very troubling to the cause of liberty. The only thing that the court is supposed to determine is whether or not the law is allowable by the constitution. Once you cross the line where a court can overturn a public vote because it thinks the people were wrong, you have left democracy. Thus, this case needs to focus on whether or not the constitution allows the people to pass proposition 8 by majority vote. Whether or not marriage was originally intended as this or that is not what this should be about.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

But we can still practice procreating, right?

Especially in elementary school! isnt that GREAT?

Massachusetts town will allow elementary school to pass out condoms

June 11, 2010

tags: Democrats, education, Politics

by Steve Dennis

The Provincetown Massachusetts School Committee has passed a new condom policy that will allow both its high school and ELEMENTARY school to pass out condoms to CHILDREN who request them.

The vote was unanimous but it does come with some controversy within the school committee– although not for the reasons you would think. Those who voted for the policy, but voiced some concerns over the policy are upset that the new policy isn’t liberal enough.

http://americaswatchtower.com/2010/06/11/massachusetts-town-will-allow-elementary-school-to-pass-out-condoms/

[Fandango 1,439]

Let's ban regular marriage! After all, it's the straight people who keep having gay babies

_______

As a conservative/libertarian, I have to say that all this hoo ha about gay marriage is ridiculous. Banning gay marriage won't make 'teh gayz' go away. So even if the argument was valid, that gay people threaten the 'future of society' by their lack of natural procreation with one another, essentially, the only option would be to kill them all. (SAID FOR ARGUMENT'S SAKE, I DON'T BELIEVE IN THAT FOR ONE SECOND) Because what does marriage have to do with it anyways? They'll still be a couple, regardless.

I say letting gays get married with STRENGTHEN the 'moral' fabric of society. We chastise them from leading these lifetstyles of partying and bed hopping, yet we as a country give them no other option. Give em the option like the rest of us. They shouldn't get a free pass out of being expected to commit for life

Especially in elementary school! isnt that GREAT?

Massachusetts town will allow elementary school to pass out condoms

June 11, 2010

tags: Democrats, education, Politics

by Steve Dennis

The Provincetown Massachusetts School Committee has passed a new condom policy that will allow both its high school and ELEMENTARY school to pass out condoms to CHILDREN who request them.

The vote was unanimous but it does come with some controversy within the school committee– although not for the reasons you would think. Those who voted for the policy, but voiced some concerns over the policy are upset that the new policy isn't liberal enough.

http://americaswatch...ss-out-condoms/

^this, has me completely dumbfounded.

Edited June 19, 2010 by Happy Bunny

[SupportGeek 21]

All of arguments specific to the gay marriage issue aside, I think the way this case is being handled is very troubling to the cause of liberty. The only thing that the court is supposed to determine is whether or not the law is allowable by the constitution. Once you cross the line where a court can overturn a public vote because it thinks the people were wrong, you have left democracy. Thus, this case needs to focus on whether or not the constitution allows the people to pass proposition 8 by majority vote. Whether or not marriage was originally intended as this or that is not what this should be about.

I would agree some in a fair and balanced world, but there was HEAVY interference on prop 8 from the Mormon church in Utah (and other anti-gay states), everything from heavy funding of the "Yes to 8" movement to finding ways to get favorable voters from other states to vote in California, also intimidation and threats used against individuals that were going to vote no and allow gays to marry. if its for California, then no other state or organization from another state should have bearing on it, but thats not the world we live in.

That aside, a public vote should be able to be reviewed and overturned when it tramples on a groups rights and takes them away for no good reason other than rampant homophobia. Allowing a vote to exist that removes rights and freedoms is a far bigger threat to liberty, this vote needed a review.

[Fandango 1,439]

I would agree some in a fair and balanced world, but there was HEAVY interference on prop 8 from the Mormon church in Utah (and other anti-gay states), everything from heavy funding of the "Yes to 8" movement to finding ways to get favorable voters from other states to vote in California, also intimidation and threats used against individuals that were going to vote no and allow gays to marry. if its for California, then no other state or organization from another state should have bearing on it, but thats not the world we live in.

That aside, a public vote should be able to be reviewed and overturned when it tramples on a groups rights and takes them away for no good reason other than rampant homophobia. Allowing a vote to exist that removes rights and freedoms is a far bigger threat to liberty, this vote needed a review.

The Mormons have no right to talk with their 'sister wives' nonsense...heh

But as much as I disagree with the vote, reviewing the motivations for the vote is getting into unconstitutional waters, and me no likey.

Edited June 19, 2010 by Happy Bunny

[one...two...tree 2,762]

All of arguments specific to the gay marriage issue aside, I think the way this case is being handled is very troubling to the cause of liberty. The only thing that the court is supposed to determine is whether or not the law is allowable by the constitution. Once you cross the line where a court can overturn a public vote because it thinks the people were wrong, you have left democracy. Thus, this case needs to focus on whether or not the constitution allows the people to pass proposition 8 by majority vote. Whether or not marriage was originally intended as this or that is not what this should be about.

It's not that simple. The judge is basically saying that Prop 8 is discriminatory, but discrimination isn't necessarily a precondition for a new law to be deemed unconstitutional. For example, we have laws against bigamy. The supporters of Prop 8 acknowledged that it is in fact discriminatory, but that like bigamy, there is legal precedence to discriminate - in this case they argue because marriage is for procreation.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

It's not that simple. The judge is basically saying that Prop 8 is discriminatory, but discrimination isn't necessarily a precondition for a new law to be deemed unconstitutional. For example, we have laws against bigamy. The supporters of Prop 8 acknowledged that it is in fact discriminatory, but that like bigamy, there is legal precedence to discriminate - in this case they argue because marriage is for procreation.

Lets not forget the judge is gay.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Passing out condoms is better than having kids have children. These children will have sex, and the parents will never know about it.

[SupportGeek 21]

Lets not forget the judge is gay.

There are really only 2 choices here for the orientation of the judges, if you are saying its a conflict of interests, the same argument can be used if it was a straight judge. We just have to assume that his conduct and professionalism that got him to the post of a Supreme Court Judge allows him to remain impartial.

[SMR 368]

I would agree some in a fair and balanced world, but there was HEAVY interference on prop 8 from the Mormon church in Utah (and other anti-gay states), everything from heavy funding of the "Yes to 8" movement to finding ways to get favorable voters from other states to vote in California, also intimidation and threats used against individuals that were going to vote no and allow gays to marry. if its for California, then no other state or organization from another state should have bearing on it, but thats not the world we live in.

That aside, a public vote should be able to be reviewed and overturned when it tramples on a groups rights and takes them away for no good reason other than rampant homophobia. Allowing a vote to exist that removes rights and freedoms is a far bigger threat to liberty, this vote needed a review.

You are making very serious allegations against various groups that if true would be very grievous indeed. If you think they are founded and you can prove it, do so. But that doesn't justify the case that is currently underway which is essentially an attempt to prove that the people voted incorrectly (a very troubling notion). If your allegations are true, a case of election fraud and intimidation should be opened, which is very different than what is going on.

Out of state funding, on the other hand, is not illegal (additionally, you need to do some research. The LDS church did not fund Proposition 8 at all). Also, consider that many of the organizations that participated are well represented in California.

The Mormons have no right to talk with their 'sister wives' nonsense...heh

But as much as I disagree with the vote, reviewing the motivations for the vote is getting into unconstitutional waters, and me no likey.

The LDS church doesn't allow polygamy.

It's not that simple. The judge is basically saying that Prop 8 is discriminatory, but discrimination isn't necessarily a precondition for a new law to be deemed unconstitutional. For example, we have laws against bigamy. The supporters of Prop 8 acknowledged that it is in fact discriminatory, but that like bigamy, there is legal precedence to discriminate - in this case they argue because marriage is for procreation.

Discrimination is not illegal or unconstitutional except in instances where it is specified as such. That's all I'm saying. The case needs to be based in constitutional law, not some sort of discourse on "traditions" (this applies to both sides).