Just as I thought homophobic bigots couldn’t get any more bizarre, they came up with this:
Marriage should be limited to unions of a man and a woman because they alone can “produce unplanned and unintended offspring,” opponents of gay marriage have told the Supreme Court.
Eh, what? Straight people should get married such that they can have unplanned pregnancies?? Is that why people get married?
It gets better, though.
Conservative attorneys did not argue that gays or lesbians engaged in “immoral” behavior or lifestyles. Instead they emphasized what they called the “very real threat” to society posed by opposite-sex couples when they are not bound by the strictures of marriage.
The traditional marriage laws “reflect a unique social difficulty with opposite-sex couples that is not present with same-sex couples — namely, the undeniable and distinct tendency of opposite-sex relationships to produce unplanned and unintended pregnancies,” wrote Clement, a solicitor general under President George W. Bush. “Unintended children produced by opposite-sex relationships and raised out-of-wedlock would pose a burden on society.”
“It is plainly reasonable for California to maintain a unique institution [referring to marriage] to address the unique challenges posed by the unique procreative potential of sexual relationships between men and women,” argued Washington attorney Charles J. Cooper, representing the defenders of Proposition 8. Same-sex couples need not be included in the definition of marriage, he said, because they “don’t present a threat of irresponsible procreation.”
Hi, straight people, you are a very real threat to society! Counsel, this is not an argument for same sex marriage, this is an argument against extramarital sex. Have you forgotten that not being married does NOT mean there will be no pregnancies?
This is the most jaw dropping argument I’ve ever heard. So gay people should be second class citizens and be denied all the legal benefits of marriage because “they do not present a risk of irresponsible procreation”? What the heck does that even mean?
In the lower courts, defenders of the traditional laws struggled to explain why committed couples of the same sex should be denied the benefits of marriage. The plaintiffs include same-sex couples who are raising children.
Clement and Cooper do not address that issue directly. Instead, they argue that it is reasonable for the law to steer opposite-sex couples toward marriage, including by giving them extra benefits. “It was rational for Congress to draw the line where it did,” Clement said, “because the institution of marriage arose in large measure in response to the unique social difficulty that opposite-sex couples, but not same-sex couples, posed.”
So, Counsel, since this “social difficulty” does not arise when women are over 50, should we ban everyone over that age from getting married? How about women with a history of hysterectomy, or men with azoospermia? Should they stopped from getting married as well?
And then, this:
Clement said gays and lesbians are hardly a politically powerless minority subjected to discrimination and in need of protection from the courts. “Gays and lesbians are one of the most influential, best-connected, best-funded and best-organized interest groups in modern politics, and have attained more legislative victories, political power and popular favor in less time than virtually any other group in American history,” he wrote.
Tell you what, Counsel. The Catholic Church is rich, influential, well connected and organized. Does it mean it needs no legal protection? Why are they suing the US government to stop the contraception mandate?
Of course, homophobes resort to this twisted language only when they know that their real arguments won’t work, for once. And the real argument, of course, in most cases, is that homosexuality is condemned by religion.
