For several days now, I?ve been in a running argument with an individual who goes by the name of ?On Lawn? over in the comments sections of the blog ran by anti-gay equality group National Organization for Marriage. In several comments here, here, and here, this person seems to imply that procreation, or at least the potential for procreation, is a requirement of marriage. I?ve tried several times to get this person to explain this concept but they keep brushing off the question calling it absurd. When I tried to point out that there is no link between marriage and procreation they came back with this.
Well, there shows the damage they want to do to the institution. If marriage can?t look equally at the interests of all involved in the practice of human mating, then you tell me what can.
Prehistoric humans didn?t marry before they mated, they just found a bush did it. When you look at the whole of human history, marriage is a relatively new creation, only being a few thousand years old. Our very existence proves that marriage is not a requirement or an essential element of the human mating process.
Perry v. Schwarzenegger
A week or so ago Walker issued a list of questions to both sides, who have now submitted their responses.
From the responses to the questions we can get a sense of the arguments that both sides are going to make in their closing remarks.
Those who support Prop 8 continue to rely heavily on the claim that the state has an inherent interest in making sure that marriage is about procreation, that marriage is nothing more than a means for creating babies. It sort of goes back to the Christian idea that sex shouldn?t be for pleasure, that it?s only purpose is to reproduce. Unfortunately that idea has always been contrary to human nature.
They also cling to to the idea that marriage has always been between a man and woman, but to believe that is to ignore thousands of years of history and the cultures of civilizations, some of which helped lay down the very foundations that make up the idea of Democracy, such as Ancient Greece. Even the Roman Emperor Nero was married to another man. Homosexuality and same sex marriage weren?t outlawed in the Christian controlled lands of the Eastern Roman Empire until the 5th Century and there have been many other civilizations since then that have had recognized and legal forms of same sex relationships.
Plaintiff’s will argue that harm is done to families of same sex couples by ban?s on marriage equality. There is significant evidence of this, from discrimination faced by same sex parents and their children, to the extra costs associated with the legal contracts that same sex couples have to establish in order to secure even a small portion of the rights that marriage brings to a family, contracts that are easily and often overturned by other family members intent on not accepting the same sex couple?s love.
And while I?s fairly confident that Judge Walker will rule that Prop 8 violates the US Constitution, that conclusion is not a given, and no mater how he rules, the matter will be far from resolved. The ruling will undoubtedly be appealed no mater what, which would presumably take the case all the way to the US Supreme Court. Which leads to concern in regards to the conservative leaning court and the possibility of setting the march to equality back decades.
But there is hope. Attitudes are changing, especially among the young. More and more of us are refusing to stand locked in a closet. We live our lives openly in order for our friends and neighbors to get to know us. So that they can see that our lives are no different than theirs, that we not the monsters that groups like the National Organization for Marriage, or NARTH, or Mass Resistance claim that we are. We are simply American?s who deserve the right to live our lives as our own.