In Tuesday's oral arguments over whether California's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, a few of the liberal Supreme Court justices took aim at one of the central arguments made by gay marriage opponents and Charles Cooper, the attorney representing the proponents of California's Proposition 8, the ban on marriage. Justice Kagan asked Cooper if the government could bar couples over the age of 55 from marrying, on the assumption that they are infertile.
It became a question that prompted the audience to laugh and Justice Scalia to invoke the name of Strom Thurmond. But the question does remain: Is the ability to naturally procreate the key to the definition of marriage?! If so, thousands of marriages are not 'legal,' including mine.
In 2013, there are many heterosexuals who cannot 'naturally' procreate. Like myself, they adopt or use IVF in order to become parents. Insemination, sperm or egg donors, surrogates, adoption, and IVF are all ways that both heterosexuals and homosexuals can reproduce in order to expand their families and make their dream of being parents come true. So this definition of marriage being linked to natural procreation is outdated and not accurate. Not to mention, what about those who naturally procreate who are not married, or might never be?
And for those who say they're trying to 'preserve' marriage, I find that hard to believe. The definition of marriage is null and void, as I just mentioned, looking at how American families are formed in 2013. But if any group is concerned about the preservation of marriage, why aren't they concerned with the problems that we have with marriage today?
As I speak, 50 percent of first time marriages end in divorce; 60-67 percent of second marriages end the same way. Why aren't those preservationists concerned about that or trying to do something about those statistics; that state of 'marriage'? What about how many married couples have abuse within the home. Doesn't a man beating his wife hurt the state and definition of marriage? And how about adultery? Illegal, not enforced and certainly a stain on the image of the institution of marriage.
So let's call this what it really is, folks. This is not about protecting marriage or even the definition of marriage. This isn't even about morality. Where's the morality in standing in city hall getting a piece of paper saying you're married!? This is not about morality. It is not about protecting or preserving marriage or the definition of marriage. This is about -- as it was with inter-racial marriage prior to the Supreme Court ruling in 1967 on the Loving V Virginia case and as it was and is now with regards to polygamy -- about repulsion of conduct.
Many Americans are repulsed by the conduct of gay men and lesbian women. Pure and simple. That is the reality and those people should admit it. And that my friend is discrimination, which is unconstitutional.
In the state of California, where I live, we allow gay men and lesbian women to receive health benefits like a married couple, have or adopt and raise children like a married couple and have civil unions; so they can almost be like a married couple, but without the actual title...without that piece of paper. Those people want that piece of paper. Those people deserve that piece of paper. And the children of those people deserve to say that their parents are married, regardless of their gender. Let's hope the Supreme Court will do the right thing in June once and for all on this issue.
- Read Jamie Chandler: Gay Marriage Advocates Must Start Courting Republicans
- Read Brad Bannon: The Supreme Court May Punt on Gay Marriage
- Check out U.S. News Weekly, now available on iPad