Quantcast

«

»

Feb 04 2013

Marriage as protection against accidental pregnancies not a new argument

Greta has a post up about the “increasingly stupid” tactics used by supporters of DOMA and Prop 8 — but, for better or for worse, the argument that marriage is different for heterosexuals because of accidental pregnancy is not a new argument at all.  It is, in fact, the primary argument used by the proponents in the original Prop 8 case.

I know, because the first time I ever got published in a “big space” was on Salon, for writing about this argument.

And Greta’s not the only one pointing to this — Rachel Maddow’s blog did as well.  Not that it isn’t worth pointing out, it definitely is, but it is even more worth pointing out that in the two and a half years the lawyers have had since the closing arguments of Prop 8 they’ve been unable to come up with anything more compelling.  Ouch.

Here was Judge Walker’s response at the time:

And [marriage], as Mr. Olson described this morning, is a right which extends essentially to all persons, whether they are capable of producing children, whether they are incarcerated, whether they are behind in their child support payments. There really is no limitation except, as Mr. Olson pointed out, a gender limitation.

Good news for us, bad for them.

3 comments

  1. 1
    win 7

    thanks for you.buy win 7 home.

  2. 2
    LV Outlet San Antonio Texas

    LV Outlet Real Thing

  3. 3
    コロンビア レディース

    の専門店

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite="" class=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>