"If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is 'no legitimate state interest' for purposes of proscribing that conduct...what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising 'the liberty protected by the Constitution'? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry."
That, of course, is Justice Antonin "Homosexual Agenda" Scalia, dissenting in Lawrence v. Texas, the landmark 2003 ruling which decriminalized all private sex between consenting adults.
Talk about unintended consequences. The original premise alongside Scalia's statement of fact is that gay marriage is too absurd and horrible to contemplate. Now that context has changed, but the statement of fact remains and is still true. Oops.
Posts
I'm glad you brought this up. I've often heard the argument that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed because procreation is impossible. I know heterosexual couples that are steril and cannot have children; should we tell them they can't marry? Absurd.
ReplyDeleteYou'd enjoy reading this decision. The Findings of Fact section is kind of tedious (interesting only inasfar as the various claims about gays and families and marriage and whatever have now been brought up, argued, and judged by a court), but the 40 pages or so before that is pretty riveting, for a court decision. The Prop 8 proponents withdrew almost all of their witnesses before the testimony started, and the testimony of the remaining witnesses, as well as the depositions of the withdrawn witnesses, repeatedly support the plaintiffs' claims against Prop 8. One gets the impression they lost because they held a completely indefensible position.
ReplyDelete