General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe 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.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,267 posts)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)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)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.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)These idiots can't seem to make up their mind.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,267 posts)pipi_k
(21,020 posts)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.