When a California appellate court heard arguments about the state’s ban on same-sex marriage this week, attorneys argued a tired mantra long championed by same-sex marriage opponents: Gays should not be allowed to marry because they can’t procreate (at least not naturally). No matter that California superior court judge Richard Kramer dismissed that claim in 2005, finding the ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Kramer noted that opposite-sex couples don’t have to have children in order to marry, while gay families are blocked from the institution no matter how many children they have or might produce.
An ability to procreate, therefore, was not germane to the argument.
But that didn’t stop California deputy attorney general Christopher Kreuger from recently making it again. It was also one of the arguments that led to New York’s supreme court to rule against same-sex marriage a week ago, and has been used in a number of other same-sex-marriage-related cases across the country.
Clearly, procreation is top-of-mind when marriage comes up before the courts. At least same-sex marriage. That got me to thinking.
If our legal system consistently asserts that the fundamental purpose of marriage is procreation, then shouldn’t it apply to all marriages equally, no matter the sex of the persons involved? After all, fair is fair. Any smart lawyer could make that case.
But a consistent application would have some unintended consequences. It would automatically:
* Nullify the marriages of about 10% of opposite-sex couples in this country. That’s the percentage of couples that want kids but can’t get pregnant. Some of those seek out infertility treatments if they can afford to do so, but one could argue that since those treatments aren’t “natural,” the procreation standard does not apply.
* Nullify the marriages of opposite-sex couples that have no desire or intention to have children. American Demographics magazine estimates that the number of childless couples in the U.S. will reach 31 million by 2010. A decision to marry based on the legal protections of marriage, like Social Security benefits, the ability to make medical decisions, inheritance rights, etc., would not be compelling enough.
* Nullify the second (or third) marriages of households where one of the partners has children by a previous marriage and has decided not to have a child with their current spouse. According to the 2000 census, there are about 1.5 million American stepfamilies in that situation.
* Nullify marriages where the only children in the household are adopted, not “naturally” created by the household parents. With procreation as the standard, kids created by other people don’t count. That would eliminate another 816,000 couples, based on the 2000 census.
* Nullify the marriages of seniors who marry when procreation is nothing but a cherished memory. While there’s no reliable data available about the number of postmenopausal newlyweds, one shocking bit of evidence has surfaced: Over 20% of unmarried couples living together qualify as AARP members. They’ve chosen to shack up in their golden years.
Clearly, a lot of otherwise happy marriages might be eliminated under this standard. But the question is, Do Americans really think marriage is primarily about procreation? I don’t think so.
Nearly two thirds of married men interviewed in a 2004 Rutgers University study, “The State of Our Unions: The Social Health of Marriage in America,” claimed readiness to have children didn’t figure prominently in their decision to marry. Just 35% believed “you get married because you were ready to have children.” That tracks with a 1999 General Social Survey social change report conducted by the University of Chicago, “The Emerging 21st Century American Family”: Nearly 70% of Americans indicate they do not believe the main purpose of marriage is to have children.
In spite of this overwhelming majority, extremists continue to make the procreation argument, sometimes with reasoning that borders on the absurd. Ken McElroy, a vocal procreation proponent, trips over himself in an essay in the American Federalist Journal: “We make laws based on the rule, not the exception. There is no reasonable way for the government to discern when a male-female couple applies for a marriage license whether that couple will bear children in the future.”
It’s the proverbial catch-22. Procreation is the driving guideline for marriage, but the state can’t determine if every couple’s future is fertile. Even so, the impetus for procreation requires some baseline qualifier; a perfunctory physical once-over is sufficient to allow heterosexual couples to marry. A low sperm count or endometriosis be damned.
McElroy and his cronies have argued themselves into a corner. It’s time they admitted what the rest of us figured out long ago. The arguments to deny same-sex couples the rights and responsibilities afforded to opposite-sex couples are, at their core, expressions of prejudice, pure and simple.
They should admit that and get on with it—or agree that the only truly fair way to deal with the issue is to apply their standard to every couple, gay or straight, equally and without prejudice or favor.
These comments are reproduced as written by visitors to this Web site. They have not been edited for content, grammar, or spelling. The viewpoints appearing here are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or views of advocate.com, The Advocate, or its affiliates.
Be the first to comment on this story.
If you would like to submit a comment for posting, please fill out the form above.
All comments submitted via this form are subject to posting or publication. (To send a private letter to an Advocate editor or writer, please use the e-mail button at the top of the page, or use snail mail.) If you would like your comment considered for publication in The Advocate magazine, please include your full name, your city of residence, and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours so that we can confirm your identity. Your e-mail address and telephone number are strictly confidential and will not be shared or used for any purpose other than to contact you about your comment.
See the Contact page for sending comments for reasons other than responding to Advocate editorial and news stories.
Please note that comments sent by fax or snail mail are unlikely to be posted, although they will be considered for publication along with all letters received via e-mail or via this Web page. Comments that chiefly concern Advocate.com content will be considered for posting only on the Web site. The Advocate reserves the right to edit submitted comments for grammar, spelling, obscenities, or libel; we will, however, do our best to preserve the original comment's style and intent. Comments considered for publication in The Advocate magazine may also be edited for length.
Home | Contact | Current Issue | LGBT Community Partners | Staff
Career Opportunities | Help
Subscribe: Print Edition Digital Edition | Subscriber Services: Print Edition Digital Edition
Visit our Websites
Out.com | OutTraveler.com | HIVPlusMag.com | Alyson.com | HereTV.com | GayWired.com | SheWired.com
Privacy Policy | User Agreement | Community Guidelines | Legal Notice
Advocate.com © 2009 Regent Entertainment Media Inc. All Rights Reserved.
