I had a friend in HS who had ovarian cancer and had her ovaries removed at 16. YET, she was able to marry despite not being able to procreate. My widowed MIL remarried at 62 and NO WAY would she EVER be able, not that she WANTED to, to procreate at her age.

I suppose if procreation is THE reason for marriage, neither of these straight couples should have been able to marry. Forget all the couples who don't WANT to have children. OT but maybe this is why they can to ban contraceptives?

Which in some places never got enlightened. I'm friends with a man whose father was born in before the turn of the last century. In a shtetl in Poland, so religious law was the norm. My friend's grandfather's first wife was unable to conceive, so in accordance with Orthodox Jewish custom of a century ago he "set her aside" and married another woman, with whom he had several children. See, there's this Commandment to "be fruitful and multiply"...

It's been known to happen in other places and other centuries, and I have a feeling that Antonin Scalia and his ilk think it's just dandy. But in the US it's hard to imagine that argument getting much traction in any century, except among cultists like the Quiverfulls and a few others.

The average American of any religion is not stupid enough to accept this rationale once it is explained to them. My husband and I would not have been able to get married, and we've been together for 30 years. My aunt was married 3 times, and neither of her final two marriages would have been acceptable under these terms, since she was about 50 when she divorced her first husband.

This particular line of reasoning is pretty much a non-starter with most of the Court, I'm thinking. The opponents of gay marriage have to try another.

Who defines procreation as the purpose of marriage? If it is the bible, please buzz off, because the bible is not the basis for US law.

The secular, civil aspect of marriage is about property rights and personal representation; about who inherits when I die and who should act for me if I am unable to act for myself. Denying a gay person the right to name an heir and a personal representative of his/her choice is discrimination. How can anyone argue with that?

The definition of procreation as the sole purpose of marriage is just silly.

I did not any way say procreation should be the only way for there to be a marriage.

I provided data that showed states allowing for certain groups could get married if they were of the right age that would not likely to provide children or they were sterile.

Geesh!