Guest Post by Morbo
If judges are going to persist in denying an entire class of people the basic right to marry, they are going to have to come up with better arguments. “Marriage is about procreation” just isn’t cutting it.
This week, the Maryland Court of Appeals, the state’s highest judicial body, upheld a 1973 law banning same-sex marriage in the state. In reaching that decision, The Washington Post reported, the court said same-sex marriage can be banned because of opposite-sex marriage’s link to child rearing.
The appeals court majority acknowledged that gay couples can be suitable parents but gave weight to the state’s argument that preserving the legal definition of marriage encourages childbearing in households made up of a father and mother. “Marriage enjoys its fundamental status due, in large part, to its link to procreation,” the majority wrote.
Pardon me for being blunt, but what a crock. Let me begin with the obvious: Marriage isn’t about procreation. It’s about two people who are in love deciding they want to be together in a manner that is recognized by the state, thus receiving certain benefits and recognitions that are available only to those whose union is so recognized.
Sure, lots of opposite-sex couples decide to have children. But others do not by choice or find that they cannot conceive. Are these marriages somehow less valid in the eyes of the state?
And here’s a newsflash for the Maryland court: Gay couples can have children, and some even procreate.
A lesbian can carry and give birth to a child. Two men can adopt. Of course the two men have not procreated. So what? They are raising a child. If maintaining the family unit is of concern to the government, it should not matter how that unit came into being. Court rulings like this portray procreation as the be all and end all of family life. Sensible people know it’s just the beginning.
That brings me to my final point: The hypocrisy of rulings like this is staggering. Read these words again from The Post: “The appeals court majority acknowledged that gay couples can be suitable parents but gave weight to the state’s argument that preserving the legal definition of marriage encourages childbearing in households made up of a father and mother.”
Right. American society certainly has no problem encouraging childbearing, but at a time when divorce rates and out-of-wedlock births are as high as they are, we’re kidding ourselves if we think a ruling banning same-sex marriage is somehow going to ensure that children end up in a home with a mother and a father. Opposite-sex couples and single heterosexuals are going to do what they will, regardless of whether the same-sex couple next door is legally married or not.
(And understand that I don’t mean to knock those who are divorced or single parents. Divorce is sometimes the best option, and many single parents are working hard to raise offspring. How about government policies that support all of these families?)
One final thought on this: The day will come when rulings like this are seen as the embarrassments that they are. They’ll be viewed the way we look at Dred Scott today. People will read about them in history books and shake their heads. The same fate awaits the spate of constitutional amendments passed in the states banning same-sex marriage.
That’s the good news. The bad news is I don’t expect this to happen soon. I doubt I’ll see it in my lifetime. But if we’re lucky, my children — raised in an opposite-sex marriage that is in no way threatened by same-sex marriage — will.