I listened to a good portion of the oral arguments to the Supreme Court today over the Prop. 8 issue. Frankly, I am flabbergasted that the primary argument to keep homosexual people from enjoying the many, many benefits of legal marriage is heterosexual reproduction. Really? So, a marriage that cannot naturally produce children is invalid? And, the response to Justice Kagan's query about denying marriage licenses when both partners are over the age of 55, was to argue that "one of the partners would remain fertile" ? WTF!!!? If you are so concerned that children be born of heterosexual, monogamous marriages . . . aren't you killing your argument to point out that children could still be conceived outside this particular marriage?
But, there is a much broader issue brought up by this argument. Nearly half of all babies born now are born outside a heterosexual, legal marriage. And, many legally married, heterosexual couples cannot produce children without outside intervention or assistance. If "protecting" legal marriage were only about insuring that children are conceived naturally and born into stable, two parent households, then making sure the thousands of children already living with same-sex parents have the legal safety-net that marriage affords to their parents would be an easy and natural decision. And, if it is the state's primary concern to regulate the production of children, then they should require a fertility test of all persons seeking to legally marry . . . and extract a pledge that they will, in fact, choose to reproduce.
Recent media reports are that one of the factors driving conservatives to accept (if not actually embrace) same-sex marriage is personally knowing a gay person. If personal experience is what is truly changing people's minds . . . then gay marriage isn't about morals or religion or "how it's always been done" . . . and that makes those folks who viciously oppose it even more ridiculous.