Gay marriage opponents take unusual tack with Supreme Court

[William769]

WASHINGTON — 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.

By contrast, when same-sex couples decide to have children, "substantial advance planning is required," said Paul D. Clement, a lawyer for House Republicans.

This unusual defense of traditional marriage was set out last week in a pair of opening legal briefs in the two gay marriage cases to be decided by the Supreme Court this spring.

Lawyers defending California's Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act want the high court to decide it is reasonable for the law to recognize only marriages between opposite-sex couples.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gay-marry-court-20130127,0,6421506.story

[samsingh]

1. these bigots are stupid and flailing

[dballance]

2. Seriously? I Guess They Haven't Heard of Birth Control and Family Planning for Heterosexuals.

So by their argument wouldn't it put those opposite-sex couples who use birth control to avoid unwanted pregnancies and do "substantial advance planning" for a pregnancy in the same category as same-sex couples who have to plan for a child?

I'm not an attorney so I don't think like one. However, I'm having a really hard time trying to see how the possibility that heterosexuals might accidentally get pregnant has anything to do with same-sex couples getting married and having equal civil and legal rights. These guys are still living in the 50's and 60's when they assert that the institution of marriage is something accidental pregnancies drive people to. That isn't the case any longer. Lots of couples never get married any longer and certainly not just because they got pregnant accidentally.

Again, I'm not an attorney and most of the justices are as old or older than these attorneys filing these absurd briefs so they may share their world view. But surely Sotomayor and Kagen are young enough to call bullshit on this argument.

And BTW, when the hell did the issue lurch off into procreation rather than the real arguments of equal civil and legal rights? What a frigging diversion they're trying to throw out there to avoid arguing the real issues brought in the case. Some justice should bitch-slap them for this.

[William769]

3. Agreed.

At this point in time, they are grasping at straws (or as my dad would have said "they are trying to sell ice cubes to Eskimos).

[Warpy]

4. The "They can't make BAY BEES!" defense only goes so far

someone always manages to remind the courts that older folks and folks with health conditions can't make them either, but they're allowed to marry if they're hetero.

And it's correct that they're flailing around. They have neither moral nor legal legs to stand on.

[dsc]

5. He appears to be arguing that laws that discriminate against gays should be judged on the rational

basis standard. Then his rational basis is that since straights have a tendency to have babies by mistake we need to encourage them to get married. If he gets the first part of his argument accepted then the unplanned pregnancy argument probably would be enough. I think Kennedy will be quite skeptical of the use of rational basis.

[pinto]

6. What an odd tack. (nt)

[dickthegrouch]

7. There oughta be a law against frivolous arguments /nt

Penalty should be to pay the costs of the court during the time the frivolous argument wastes, payable entirely by the proponent of the argument, at the time the ruling is published. At a rate of several million an hour for the SCOTUS, that could get expensive very quickly.

[MNBrewer]

8. Death penalty