Prop 8 Supporters Define Marriage Through Children
For all you married people without children… you don’t have a “real” marriage.
Those supporters filed their first brief on Friday. In it, they argue that marriage is inherently defined by the ability of heterosexual couples to procreate.
“The essential question in this case, then, is whether such unions [opposite-sex marriages] possess distinguishing characteristics that are relevant to marriage,” they write. “This is not a hard question. Indeed, because of the distinguishing procreative characteristics of heterosexual relationships, until quite recently ‘it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex.'”
Got that? Procreation is the key.
If the ability to have children ultimately defines marriage then should people who are unable or unwilling to procreate be allowed to marry?
Tags: Gay Marriage, Prop 8
I guess they really have run out of arguments.
I’m waiting for them to introduce bills to forbid marriage to infertile people & women past the age of menopause. Perhaps when you get your marriage license you’ll get a fertility test as well?
insane. I hate those people.
Now, now, this is a work in progress. You’re asking to undo 200 years of thinking in one Prop. Give it time. Gay adoptions are here. Insurance benefits are here. It’s just going to take some patience, and perhaps wordsmithing.
I can see the 2 for 1 deals now… Get a vasectomy and a divorce for one low price!
Joanne,
They used almost the exact same arguments against allowing people of different races to marry – “it’s always been that way.” Marriage has actually changed quite a bit.
But they aren’t arguing for “it’s always been that way” in the brief. They are saying that marriage is defined by the ability to procreate. Therefore, if you lack the ability to procreate you shouldn’t be allowed to marry – no matter what sex the couple is.
That’s quite a stance.
I see it totally different–the only reason the state, church, and people seal the deal on all three levels (and the only blurring of three parties), was to protect children as documented offspring of procreation in marriage. Although it may seem archaic now–it should have been hailed as a conscious responsibility all three entities to do what was perceived as best, diligent, and responsible. Move the clock up 200 years, and yes unions have changed, as have procreative capabilities, and family constellations. The time is ripe for churches to bow out of the marriage market as a qualifier and witness–and leave it to the state and individuals. Call it a union if it’s totally civil in arrangement, and a marriage if there is an added layer of ecclestiastical endorsement. But don’t sabotage the movement w/ outlandish procreation cries–it’s not a singular story. And it doesn’t help the cause.
I can remember the day when a child born out of wedlock, automatically had the mother’s father listed as the father (hence responsibility). Nowadays, people would scream “CREEPY”, not knowing the historical context. I guess, the gays I know, who have had this struggle, and childbearing/adoption struggles are far more serious, and level-minded to be baited by this kind of sensationalism. I don’t want to add to that. People embrace better, when you don’t go off like a screamin’ meemee (sp), over every perceived injustice, or juxtaposition of a sentence. Just my 2 cents.