Redefining Marriage
From what I am seeing so far of the Supreme Court arguments regarding marriage equality (NY Times live blog), the primary argument being made in favor of Prop 8 and in opposition to same-sex marriage is that marriage is defined by procreation, and the state sanctions marriage because it wants people to procreate. They don't want marriage redefined because procreation is essential to the definition.
The justices inquired about straight couples who want to get married but cannot procreate: sterile couples, elderly couples. By the supposed definition of marriage, these people shouldn't be able to marry either, because they can't procreate.
But what about people like me: a straight person married to another straight person, who has chosen not to have children?
I expect the lawyers would argue that I'm not really analogous to a same-sex couple because I could procreate if I wanted to, unlike the examples the justices raised. But I think that misses the point a bit: many gay couples have chosen to have children--taking advantage of the many means available to straight couples who can't reproduce on their own without assistance or intervention. If a gay couple procreates using a surrogate, or through artificial insemination, how is that couple different from the straight couple that needs those same means to have children?
They're not different. Except that one--the straight couple--is entitled in any state of the union to the not insignificant institutional benefits and protections we as a society have accorded marriage, while the other--the gay couple--isn't. If those benefits and protections exist because we as a society believe in producing and raising children, then the gay couple should be accorded every last one of those, as the logical conclusion of the argument put forth today.
But by that same argument, if procreation is the sole reason for marriage, people like me should not be entitled to those benefits. My husband and I should not be allowed to be married. How is that not redefining marriage?
No one seemed to have a problem with our getting married seventeen years ago. No one checked to make sure I was fertile when I got my marriage license. No one has been protesting on the court steps my right to be married. Why? Because it has nothing to do with procreation. That argument is just so much protective coverage for what is essentially bigotry.
Civil unions have been suggested as the alternative for gay couples. That's just today's version of "separate but equal"--which, you'll recall, wasn't. No one is telling straight couples who want to get married but may be unable or unwilling to have children that they shouldn't get married, they should just file for a civil union. No one is calling home in excitement to tell their parents that their partner asked for their hand in civil union; parents aren't joyfully planning children's civil unions.
Marriage does hold a special place in our society. We acknowledge that emotionally and socially. We acknowledge that financially and legally, in the protections of law that are afforded married couples.
When we deny that special place in our hearts and in our laws to some of our citizens based solely on the sex of the person they want to marry, we deny them equal protection under the law. To argue that that's not true would mean redefining marriage in a way that invalidates marriages (like mine) that have been valid and accepted for many years.
Seems like a pretty clear-cut case to me.
The justices inquired about straight couples who want to get married but cannot procreate: sterile couples, elderly couples. By the supposed definition of marriage, these people shouldn't be able to marry either, because they can't procreate.
But what about people like me: a straight person married to another straight person, who has chosen not to have children?
I expect the lawyers would argue that I'm not really analogous to a same-sex couple because I could procreate if I wanted to, unlike the examples the justices raised. But I think that misses the point a bit: many gay couples have chosen to have children--taking advantage of the many means available to straight couples who can't reproduce on their own without assistance or intervention. If a gay couple procreates using a surrogate, or through artificial insemination, how is that couple different from the straight couple that needs those same means to have children?
They're not different. Except that one--the straight couple--is entitled in any state of the union to the not insignificant institutional benefits and protections we as a society have accorded marriage, while the other--the gay couple--isn't. If those benefits and protections exist because we as a society believe in producing and raising children, then the gay couple should be accorded every last one of those, as the logical conclusion of the argument put forth today.
But by that same argument, if procreation is the sole reason for marriage, people like me should not be entitled to those benefits. My husband and I should not be allowed to be married. How is that not redefining marriage?
No one seemed to have a problem with our getting married seventeen years ago. No one checked to make sure I was fertile when I got my marriage license. No one has been protesting on the court steps my right to be married. Why? Because it has nothing to do with procreation. That argument is just so much protective coverage for what is essentially bigotry.
Civil unions have been suggested as the alternative for gay couples. That's just today's version of "separate but equal"--which, you'll recall, wasn't. No one is telling straight couples who want to get married but may be unable or unwilling to have children that they shouldn't get married, they should just file for a civil union. No one is calling home in excitement to tell their parents that their partner asked for their hand in civil union; parents aren't joyfully planning children's civil unions.
Marriage does hold a special place in our society. We acknowledge that emotionally and socially. We acknowledge that financially and legally, in the protections of law that are afforded married couples.
When we deny that special place in our hearts and in our laws to some of our citizens based solely on the sex of the person they want to marry, we deny them equal protection under the law. To argue that that's not true would mean redefining marriage in a way that invalidates marriages (like mine) that have been valid and accepted for many years.
Seems like a pretty clear-cut case to me.
posted by Maines at 2:02 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home