California decision

The judge says :'One does not have to be married in order to procreate, nor does one have to procreate in order to be married,' he wrote. 'Thus, no legitimate state interest to justify the preclusion of same-sex marriage can be found.'

Well, that's all well and good, but if a couple does not have a right to procreate, then that couple is also not allowed to marry, even in California:
285. Persons being within the degrees of consanguinity within which marriages are declared by law to be incestuous and void, who intermarry with each other, or who commit fornication or adultery with each other, are punishable by imprisonment in the state prison.
Currently, same-sex couples have the right to attempt to procreate with SSP, but only because Congress hasn't got around to enacting the egg and sperm law yet. That law would mean that a same-sex couple, like siblings, would not have a right to procreate together, and therefore, like siblings, they would not have a right to marry each other. Because ALL MARRIAGES must have a right to procreate, regardless of the fact that it is possible and even legal to procreate without marriage.


Marty said...

Bingo. Laws banning consangineuous relationships MUST be struck down, if gay-marriage is allowed, because there can be "no rational basis" for prohibiting family members from having sexual relations -- if they are of the same sex. Such laws ONLY have meaning, in procreative unions.

Which leave us with what? That incest is only banned for heterosexuals, and allowed for gays? How twisted a result of "orientation discrimination" would THAT be?

John Howard said...

That would be true, wouldn't it? But rather than noting the absurdity that we are witnessing, and finding ever more absurd things ever more amusing, we have to get serious. We should point out how it CAN'T be legal, how it would be unethical to allow it.