A few months ago, there was a thread here that asked whether there were any secular arguments for a ban on gay marriage. It seems as though the argument that got the most traction went like this:
One important purpose of marriage is to raise children. Naturally, heterosexual couples should be allowed to marry. While it is true that gay couples can adopt, allowing them to marry would send the signal to society that marriage is no longer about procreation. Because it is important for society to believe that marriage is about procreation, only heterosexual couples should be allowed to marry.
I thought this was an exceptionally bad argument at the time, but it turns out that the attorneys for Michigan in the soon-to-be-landmark Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court case currently being heard are making a similar argument. I had a hard time believing such a terrible argument was actually being presented before the court, but alas it is. Here is an excerpt from an article in the LA Times that quotes some of the Michigan attorneys:
The state's concern, he said, is that allowing the women to marry would have an effect on the rest of society. It would "de-link the idea that we're binding children with their biological mom and dad."
But what about adopted children, asked Justice Stephen G. Breyer. Shouldn't their parents also be allowed to marry?
"We love adoptions. Adopted parents are heroic," Bursch said, but "that's an entirely different social issue."
If opposite-sex adoptive parents marry, the state doesn't see a problem with de-linking marriage and procreation in people's minds, but same-sex couples marrying would pose that problem, he explained.
Gay marriage foe's argument seems to leave Supreme Court justices puzzled - LA Times
The Justices don't seem to be buying it, as based on the Judicial questions thus far, it seems like this decision is going to be more decisive than the 5-4 majority one would expect based on voting histories. I simply thought it was interesting that the Michigan attorneys were presented the same argument that was laid out here.
One important purpose of marriage is to raise children. Naturally, heterosexual couples should be allowed to marry. While it is true that gay couples can adopt, allowing them to marry would send the signal to society that marriage is no longer about procreation. Because it is important for society to believe that marriage is about procreation, only heterosexual couples should be allowed to marry.
I thought this was an exceptionally bad argument at the time, but it turns out that the attorneys for Michigan in the soon-to-be-landmark Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court case currently being heard are making a similar argument. I had a hard time believing such a terrible argument was actually being presented before the court, but alas it is. Here is an excerpt from an article in the LA Times that quotes some of the Michigan attorneys:
The state's concern, he said, is that allowing the women to marry would have an effect on the rest of society. It would "de-link the idea that we're binding children with their biological mom and dad."
But what about adopted children, asked Justice Stephen G. Breyer. Shouldn't their parents also be allowed to marry?
"We love adoptions. Adopted parents are heroic," Bursch said, but "that's an entirely different social issue."
If opposite-sex adoptive parents marry, the state doesn't see a problem with de-linking marriage and procreation in people's minds, but same-sex couples marrying would pose that problem, he explained.
Gay marriage foe's argument seems to leave Supreme Court justices puzzled - LA Times
The Justices don't seem to be buying it, as based on the Judicial questions thus far, it seems like this decision is going to be more decisive than the 5-4 majority one would expect based on voting histories. I simply thought it was interesting that the Michigan attorneys were presented the same argument that was laid out here.
