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: that the ability to naturally procreate is key to the definition of marriage.
Charles Cooper, the attorney representing proponents of California’s Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage, argued that allowing same-sex nuptials would fundamentally change the definition of marriage for the worse.
“The concern is that redefining marriage as a genderless institution will sever its abiding connection to its historic traditional procreative purposes, and it will refocus the purpose of marriage and the definition of marriage away from the raising of children and to the emotional needs and desires of adults,” Cooper said.
Justice Elena Kagan, an appointee of President Barack Obama, pressed Cooper on that argument, asking him why then the government could not bar couples who are both over the age of 55 from marrying, on the assumption that they are infertile. Read full article.