Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

brooklynite

(93,843 posts)
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 05:31 PM Mar 2013

The Fatal Flaw in the Anti-Gay Marriage argument

JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, suppose a State said, Mr. Cooper, suppose a State said that, Because we think that the focus of marriage really should be on procreation, we are not going to give marriage licenses anymore to any couple where both people are over the age of 55. Would that be constitutional?

MR. COOPER: No, Your Honor, it would not be constitutional.

6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Fatal Flaw in the Anti-Gay Marriage argument (Original Post) brooklynite Mar 2013 OP
That has always been the big flaw. The notion that marriage is primarily The Velveteen Ocelot Mar 2013 #1
What that lawyer "said" was that the older couple could marry, BUT SoCalDem Mar 2013 #2
That's not quite what he said. The Velveteen Ocelot Mar 2013 #3
But I thought the point WAS procreation? justiceischeap Mar 2013 #5
No, they can't. Hence the monstrous flaw. The Velveteen Ocelot Mar 2013 #6
In addition... pipi_k Mar 2013 #4

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,267 posts)
1. That has always been the big flaw. The notion that marriage is primarily
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 05:44 PM
Mar 2013

for the production of offspring and that therefore because same-sex couples can't reproduce (actually, they can and do, but that's another issue) they shouldn't be allowed to marry is ridiculous on its face. As Justice Kagan pointed out, by that logic if a couple is too old to have children they can't be married. Taking it a step further, would people be denied marriage licenses if one or both parties were infertile? Would you have to get a fertility test before being issued a marriage license? When a women reaches menopause would she have to get a divorce so as to free up her husband to marry a younger, fertile woman so more children can be made, since now her marriage has become pointless?

I am kind of surprised that a lawyer found qualified to practice before the Supreme Court would come up with such a lame, easily deflated argument. He must have felt like a fool, and deserved to.

SoCalDem

(103,856 posts)
2. What that lawyer "said" was that the older couple could marry, BUT
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 06:18 PM
Mar 2013

it would be "acceptable" for the (supposedly) fertile man to "spread his seed" with fertile women he's not married to.. That's family values for you..republican style..

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,267 posts)
3. That's not quite what he said.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 06:32 PM
Mar 2013

He knew Kagan had him, and he was trying to wiggle away from the over-55 question by justifying allowing older couples to marry by saying that it would prevent irresponsible procreation because the couple (presumably the man, really) would want to be faithful to their marriage vows - so the presumably fertile husband would be deterred from "spreading his seed" upon women he wasn't married to.

It was still a lame answer.

pipi_k

(21,020 posts)
4. In addition...
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 06:43 PM
Mar 2013

he was fool enough to state that it would actually be a very small percentage of those marriages where both parties would be infertile.

Which caused laughter. Which I'm sure he probably didn't understand....duhhhhhhh....even if ONE of those parties is infertile, no children would come of that marriage unless the fertile person had a child outside the marriage. Yeah, there ya go...protecting the sanctity of marriage....

Justice Kagan replied something to the effect that we would probably not see a whole lot of children coming from those over-55 marriages.


I'd like to add another little wrinkle to this guy's stupid logic...what if a couple wants to marry but never wants to have children? What happens...would they be denied the right to marry also?

This whole marriage for procreation thing is really too idiotic, yet they keep at it like it makes sense.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Fatal Flaw in the Ant...