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?