Gay marriage: Menopause and impotence to the rescue!

elena-kagan-0035d329b819b0edIn March, the Supreme Court heard arguments about Proposition 8, a ban on same-sex marriages, which voters in California passed in 2008.

The defense of the ban had to be made on legal grounds.  It would not do to say: “because God says all homos will burn in hell.”  Charles Cooper, the lawyer supporting the ban, said that the debate over same-sex marriages is taking place in states across the country, and the Supreme Court should not interfere in this democratic process.

None of the justices appeared to think much of this argument.  Justice Elena Kagan (casting a spell, above) said:

In reading the briefs, it seems as though your principal argument is that…opposite-sex couples can procreate, same-sex couples cannot, and the State’s principal interest in marriage is in regulating procreation. Is that basically correct?

Cooper said yes, it was “the essential thrust of our position.”

Justice Stephen Breyer pointed out that “couples that aren’t gay but can’t have children get married all the time.”

Cooper allowed that was true, but he worried that if marriage was redefined as a “genderless institution” the focus of marriage would not be raising children, but rather “the emotional needs and desires of adults, of adult couples.”

Justice Kagan said, “If you are over the age of 55, you don’t help us serve the government’s interest in regulating procreation through marriage. So why is that different?”

Cooper said that it is rare that “both parties to the couple are infertile.”

Kagan said, “I can just assure you, if both the woman and the man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage.”

The transcript recorded: “Laughter.”  Which Cooper’s argument deserved.

3 thoughts on “Gay marriage: Menopause and impotence to the rescue!

  1. Luckily, that particular argument in favor of the ban is a doomed argument (not to mention ridiculous). The main objection to same-sex marriage is, and always has been, “religious”. They can’t use that in court, as you point out.

  2. From the excerpts I’ve seen, defenders of the ban laid as many traps as they could, hoping the justices would trip them. There was no single argument that they were willing to bet the ranch on.

  3. Well, the “Marriage vows” never seem to bother putting gender or child making as part of the promise or requirement. Does that ever both any of those people? Not really. So all this debate must be accidental, when someone decided to “care about the future” – nothing but an excuse. How entertaining!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *