The Desparation of the Procreation Argument Against Equality

Sam, what potential to have kids does a man married to a woman who has had a hysterectomy have?

- - - Updated - - -

And where in the Constitution does it say "marriage is for procreation"....your OTHER argument?

 

It isnt in the constitution. Not sure of your point. And who are you quoting? Or is that one of your quotes you made up?

 

Allowing gay people to be legally married, is no problem.

That's what it all amounts to.

 

Dixon, How many more times are you going to cut and paste this inane, simplistic clap trap without doing any research or providing any documentation? I’m sure that I’m not the only one who is sick of hearing this.

First, let’s be clear about what we mean by “constitutional law” The written text of the state and federal constitutions. The body of judicial precedent that has gradually developed through a process in which courts interpret, apply, and explain the meaning of particular constitutional provisions and principles during a legal proceeding. Executive, legislative, and judicial actions that conform with the norms prescribed by a constitutional provision. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Constitutional+Law

If we’re talking about Constitutional Amendments –either state or federal-do you not know that congress or a legislature can pass, or at least initiate an amendment that supersedes or repeals that amendment? Remember prohibition? In case you don’t it was repealed by passing a new amendment.

In the U.S. Congress, both the House of Representatives and the Senate approve by a two-thirds supermajority vote, a joint resolution amending the Constitution. Amendments so approved do not require the signature of the President of the United States and are sent directly to the states for ratification.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/usconstitution/a/constamend.htm

Do you not believe that in any state where there is now a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage, the legislature could play a role-albeit, not unilaterally in most cases- to change that? (Keep in mind that where if repealing an amendment must be put to a referendum, the initial amendment would have had to also) In a few states direct initiatives to add or repeal amendments can be put on the ballet without legislative approval but you cannot say that legislation never overturns constitutional law. http://ballotpedia.org/Initiative

At the state level: Each American state has its own rules and procedures that govern how its constitution can be amended.
The ways a state constitution can be amended or revised are:
• Via a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment.
• Via an initiated constitutional amendment. Eighteen states allow this method of amendment although the requirements in several of these states are so prohibitively difficult that the process has rarely if ever been used (Illinois, Mississippi).
• Via a commission-referred amendment process, which takes place only in Florida.
• Via a constitutional convention. In some states, automatic ballot referrals allow voters to decide at regular intervals whether to hold a convention.
• Through direct action of the state legislature with no vote of the people. (This happens only in Delaware).
With regards to court rulings which found a law unconstitutional, congress or the state legislature can also pass a new law to get around the constitutional objection, or pass an amendment as described above to modify the constitution. http://prospect.org/article/overruling-court

With respect to gay rights cases, most rulings on questions of constitutionality so far have centered on the right of states that ban gay marriage or otherwise restrict the rights of gays to do so. This is very different than Constitutional amendments that say that the state may not recognize gay marriage. Rather, the ruling may include language to the effect that the state has the right to ban gay marriage but is not required to do so. In other words, the states retain the prerogative of modifying the law. When the state does exercise that prerogative, they are not overturning the court. There is no need to. It was the legislature that took away the right to marry and it is the legislature that can restore that right.

That’s what happened in Washington State, the case that you like to talk so much about and apparently seem to think that people there still have no constitutional right to marriage, when in fact, it was never established that they did not have that right.

Singer v Hara In 1971 in Seattle, in one of the first same-sex marriage lawsuits in the U.S., gay activists John Singer and Paul Barwick requested a marriage license from the King County auditor, Lloyd Hara, to demonstrate the inequality between gay and heterosexual couples Hara refused, and Singer and Barwick brought suit on the grounds that the denial violated the Equal Rights Amendment of the state constitution. The Washington Court of Appeals denied the claim in 1974 in Singer v. Hara. The Washington Supreme Court refused to review the Court of Appeals' decision. ( And yes that did set a precedent because of the way that it got to the supreme court-I'm aware of that)

Since that time same sex marriage has been passed in the legislature and signed by the governor. Although implementation was blocked by petition, it subsequently passed by referendum with 66% of the popular vote. No further court action was required and the legislation, with rendered the court ruling moot, was not challenged. People are still getting married in Washington State and those marriages are as valid as if the Supreme Court explicitly said that they now have a constitution right to marry. The right is presumed if not challenged.
Source: http://www.leagle.com/decision/197425811WnApp247 1228

Even if a court went beyond a ruling that said that the state MAY ban same sex marriage, and said the there was no right to same sex marriage, a legislature would not be barred from passing a law that extended that right to gays. So please stop telling us that “Legislation does not overturn constitutional law” We are all sick of hearing it. From now on do your own homework. Spare us you’re dumbed down, simplistic, inane, cut and paste one liners. Oh yea, this is the second time today that I smacked you down on your idiotic bovine excrement. Nothing more to say about married gay people who allegedly don’t have rights and obligations to a child born to a same sex spouse from birth? Didn’t think so
Have a good evening

 

Oh fun, the stupid questions. Yes. But they can only initiate

No, I do believe.

Tell that to the fools who have alleged 100 times that the court decision has been overturned. Notice how you arent accomplishing anything here relevant to the topic of discussion? You do like to babble on about irrelevancy.

So after all of that you couldnt even contradict a thing Ive said

 

Pretty pathetic and lazy rebuttal I must say. I contradicted everything that you said. Keep dumbing it down . You wear it well

 

You are again confused. Here is what I said and you quoted.

You agreed with me. "When the state does exercise that prerogative, they are not overturning the court." What is there to rebut?

 

In that particular type of case which I only mentioned because you have been going on about Washington State people not having a constitutional right to SSM . "Even if a court went beyond a ruling that said that the state MAY ban same sex marriage, and said the there was no right to same sex marriage, a legislature would not be barred from passing a law that extended that right to gays.”

You're ignoring everything else that I said because it represents inconvenient truths. More than refuting your assertion that legislation never trumps constitutional law, I've demonstrated how profoundly simplistic your assertions are.

 

Call them simplistic if you like, they are accurate. And I ignore everything else because they are the strawmen you scamper after.

 

Lol........

 

I don't believe that he is still copying and pasting that simplistic line after I beat him down on it yesterday

 

You agreed with me silly.

 

Good News for Bigots

You don't have to go to Uganda to avoid equality: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/02...-anti-gay-law/

Republican allegiance is to fundamentalist Christians.

But the diehard Republicans in the legislature know which asses they want to kiss, and they’re white, heterosexual, fundamentalist Christian ones — the business community be damned

 

WASHINGTON -2.26.14- When U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia of the Western District of Texas struck down the Lone Star State's ban on gay marriage on Wednesday, he cited the words of a man who is normally a friend to conservatives: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

And in explaining why the biological ability of many opposite-sex couples to procreate doesn't justify denying equal rights to same-sex couples, Garcia cited Scalia, too.
"[W]hat justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising 'the liberty protected by the Constitution'? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry," Scalia wrote at the time.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/26/scalia-gay-marriage_n_4861115.html

 

Do you support "equality" for plural marriage? I have detected much hatred and bigotry against these folks. I believe the sick stuff would stop if it were legalized, just as I believe gay marriage will help gay men with their promiscuity issues. Bring it all into the light. Don't be hypocrites. Support true marriage equality.
My prediction is that plural marriage will be illegal until gay men decide it is just the kind of arrangement they would love to have!!

 

I think you will find that most here don't really have a problem with this. I have heard that there is concern over how logistics might work, and if there is a link between it and social inequality for women, but that's not really my case to prove. If there is justifiable reasons for the restrictions, then so be it, if not, then the restrictions should be brought down.

 

Hello there. Have we met? I’m not sure who your question is directed at, or for that matter why it’s being posed in a thread about procreation and marriage, but since I started this discussion, I thought that I would reply.

First I will say that I for one have no moral objection to plural marriage as long as it involves consenting adults participating on an equal basis. In fact my spouse and I have “played house” with other couples as well as singles for periods of time. You may have heard of the Polyamory Society that promotes the practice, although I don’t think that there is a lot of political support and it is certainly not a “movement” as same sex marriage is. Nevertheless, if it were to come to the forefront of public and political discourse there would be legal and social issues that we would have to deal with much in the same way that we are grappling with same sex marriage now. While I don’t see those issues as insurmountable, such arrangements would upend the concept of marriage a bit more than the current debate has. In addition, I’m here to tell you that if you think that one on one marriage is challenging, try dealing with the dynamics of a group marriage. Also, to be clear, we are not talking about polygamy, a decidedly unequal arrangement where men have multiple wives that are often under aged and coerced into the arrangement.

Having said that I will also say that most often, when “other alternative lifestyles “ are brought up in a discussion of same sex marriage, and prefaced with “why not equality for all or you’re being a hypocrite” I have found that most often, the writer has a nefarious intent. Frequently those making this argument do not really believe in what that present as full equality for all, but rather wish to derail and obfuscate the issue of marriage equality-gay couples seeking the same rights as heterosexual couples enjoy under the law and as accepted by contemporary society. The intent is to stoke the fears of those who are already dubious about any redefinition of marriage with a slippery slope type of scenario. A logical fallacy if you will

Also, those who accuse someone of being a hypocrite for support same sex marriage but not “other variations” on marriage are, intentionally or not, perpetrating another type of logical fallacy, a slight of hand known as Tu quoque /tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/ (Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy. It attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position and attempts to show that a criticism or objection to that position applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency and not the position presented whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit the position. It is also a false analogy between two or more objects, ideas, or situations which is another favorite trick of people trying to win an argument when there argument is inherently weak. If the two things that are being compared aren’t really alike in the relevant respects, the analogy is a weak one.

The issue of other sexual preferences is not on the table and has NOTHING to do with the current debate. Equality means equal to what heterosexual people can do that is generally accepted by society and is legal. When, and if the issues of further changing the definition of marriage comes up, it will be an issue that will affect everyone, not just something that will be pushed by gay men as you seem to think. In fact I can tell you from experience, that the vast majority of people involved in polyamory are not gay. I suggest that if you want to discuss plural marriage, you should start a separate topic on it. To do it here is-intentionally or not-undermining the cause for marriage equality.

So my friend, please explain to us what your true intent is with this post. Please explain your position on same sex marriage as in marriage equality independently of other issues.

 

Wow!

Great post, definitely worth reposting.

 

Thank you. However, it hasn't stopped him

 

I guess the colloquialism "You can't fix stupid" has some validity.

 

Same-Sex Marriage Bans Are Unconstitutional, And This Latest Ruling Proves That:

The “will of the people” argument against same-sex marriage bans falls flat, as Judge Friedman pointed out. Here’s why: Something that is a right shouldn’t be subject to a vote. We should not be able to vote on who gets what rights in a free country. Or we are not truly free. The case against marriage as a right also doesn’t hold water.
It’s time for conservatives to realize that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional. It’s also time for the religious right to understand that they can’t continue to push their religious agenda for the purpose of denying equality to a certain group of people. Straight couples take their ability to marry or not for granted. Same-sex couples don’t have that. Since being gay isn’t a choice, they do fall under the Equal Protection clause. Same-sex marriage bans are illegal under the Constitution, and it’s time for the religious right to realize they’ve lost.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/03/21/sex-marriage-bans-unconstitutional-latest-ruling-proves/

This case puts the final nail in the coffin for the argument that gay parenting harms children. The opponents of equality used a flawed study from a discredited source and the judge saw right through it

 

.As hard as it is to believe, at this late date, there are still those who are trying to use “procreation” and “fertility” as rationales for prohibiting same sex marriage. . I ‘m still hearing much bloviating about how there is no compelling government interest in allowing same sex marriage because of this supposed inability to procreate, or that, moronically same sex marriage will inhibit procreation by opposite sex couples. There are even those who will go beyond the refuted notion that procreation is central to and required for marriage and claim that procreation is the only reason for marriage. That is so absurd that even the most ardent supporters of discrimination have not tried that on in court.

In any case, the undisputable fact is that gay folks can and do have children. Many are actually the biological parent. Others adopt or have children by other means. I don’t much care if anyone wants to acknowledge that as “procreation” or not. That is just a word. The reality is that the compelling government interest is in supporting stable and secure homes for the children that come into this world by whatever means. Yes, it is just that simple.

At the same time and by the same person, it has been asserted that gays want all of the benefits of marriage without the responsibility of parenthood. Never mind the fact that gay people are in fact parents, he is now acknowledging that there or other benefits to marriage! There or in fact ther reasons to be married! Oh, they mean “benefits to society” vs. benefits to the couple. Sorry, that doesn’t wash either. Straight couples never had to explain how their marriage benefits society nor is there any evidence that gay marriage has any different effect on society than any other marriage.
So how are the courts viewing the “procreation argument”?

As early as 1987 In Turner v. Safley, the USD Supreme Court struck down a Missouri regulation that prohibited inmates from marrying unless the prison superintendent approved of the marriage. 482 U.S. 78, 99-100. The Court held that inmates retained their fundamental right to marry even though they had a reduced expectation of liberty in prison. The Court emphasized the many attributes of marriage that prisoners could enjoy even if they were not able to have sexual
relations

While the Supreme Court noted that some inmates might one day be able to consummate their marriages when they were released, the Court found that marriage was important irrespective of its relationship to procreation because it was an expression of emotional support and public commitment, it was spiritually significant, and it provided access to important legal and government benefits. Id. These attributes of marriage are as applicable to same-sex couples as they are to opposite-sex couples. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/482/78/case.html

More recently Baker v Vermont: was a lawsuit decided by Vermont Supreme Court on December 20, 1999. It was one of the first judicial affirmations of the right of same-sex couples to treatment equivalent to that afforded different-sex couples. The unanimous decision held that the state's prohibition on same-sex marriage denied rights granted by the Vermont Constitution. The court ordered the Vermont legislature to either allow same-sex marriages or implement an alternative legal mechanism according similar rights to same-sex couples.

The case began when On July 22, 1997, three same-sex couples, who had been denied marriage licenses in the towns of Milton and Shelburne and the city of South Burlington, sued those jurisdictions and the state. Superior Court Judge Linda Levitt granted the defendants' motion (to dismiss) , ruling that the marriage statutes could not be construed to allow same-sex marriages and that the statutes were constitutional because they served the public interest by promoting "the link between procreation and child rearing" An appeal resulted In a unanimous ruling on December 20, 19 99.The Vermont Supreme Court ruled that the state must guarantee the very same protections and benefits to same-sex couples that it does to male-female spouses. It held that excluding same-sex couples from the benefits associated with marriage violated the state constitution, and said that the legislature should, in a "reasonable period of time", find a way to provide same-sex couples with those benefits. It found that the state's policy did not serve such an "overriding public interest", rejecting the argument that same-sex marriages would do harm by weakening the link between marriage and child rearing and finding no administrative or pragmatic difficulty with extending the rights of marriage to same-sex couples. The court dismissed the remaining arguments, such as those concerning the "stability" of same-sex couples, as too nebulous or speculative to justify a policy with respect to all same-sex couples and equally applicable to some male-female partnerships. There was no further mention of procreation.
http://www.ask.com/wiki/Baker_v._Ver...apn&ap=ask.com

Goodridge v Department of Public Health was a landmark state appellate court case dealing with same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. The November 18, 2003, decision was the first by a U.S. state's highest court to find that same-sex couples had the right to marry. The court affirmed that it owes "great deference to the Legislature to decide social and policy issues." Where, as here, the constitutionality of a law is challenged, it is the "traditional and settled role" of courts to decide the constitutional question. The "marriage ban" the court held, "works a deep and scarring hardship" on same-sex families "for no rational reason." It prevents children of same-sex couples "from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of 'a stable family structure in which children will be reared, educated, and socialized."' "It cannot be rational under our laws," the court held, "to penalize children by depriving them of State benefits" because of their parents' sexual orientation.

The court rejected the Commonwealth's claim that the primary purpose of marriage was procreation. Rather, the history of the marriage laws in the Commonwealth demonstrates that "it is the exclusive and permanent commitment of the marriage partners to one another, not the begetting of children, that is the sine qua non of marriage."
http://nortonsafe.search.ask.com/web...=en_US&tpr=111



In 2005 Courts in Massachusetts, New York and Washington state recently wrote that such a state interest no longer applies in a world of artificial insemination and adoption. Those courts also said procreation isn't threatened by same-sex marriage.

"The precise question is whether barring committed same-sex couples from the benefits of the civil marriage laws somehow serves the interest of encouraging procreation. There is no logical way in which it does so," King County Superior Court Judge William Downing of Seattle ruled in August 2004. http://legacy.utsandiego.com/news/st...ocreation.html
In July 2007, Vermont became the 4th state to legalize same sex marriage, and the first by legislation, after the legislature overrode a gubernatorial veto. https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Baker_v._Vermont.html



And on December 19, 2013 five same sex couples won a judgment in the State Supreme Court against a county clerk and the State of New Mexico and were granted the right to marry. The court was unconvinced by the defense arguments that the previous definition of marriage should be upheld because opposite-sex married couples best provide child rearing needs and because it promotes "responsible procreation" and "responsible child-rearing." The opinion stated that "Same-gender couples are as capable of responsible procreation as are opposite-gender couples. We conclude that there is not a substantial relationship between New Mexico marriage laws and the purported governmental interest in responsible procreation."
http://www.christianpost.com/news/nm...ildren-111188/
Note that the source is the Christian Post

Also in 2013 A Federal Judge eviscerated Oregon’s ban on same-sex marriage “The first possible objective of Measure 36 (Ban on same sex marriage) is to encourage responsible procreation. Preventing same-sex couples from marrying, however, will have no effect on the procreation of opposite-sex couples in Oregon. Further, same-sex couples can and do procreate — through adoptions, surrogates, and artificial insemination. Denying same-sex couples the status of marriage will not discourage their procreation. Instead, it will lead to children being born out of wedlock to these couples. Thus, excluding same-sex couples from the institution of marriage is not rationally related to the promotion of responsible procreation. http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/0...-sex-marriage/

And, in the recent Supreme Court case that overturned a critical section of the Defense of Marriage Act, there was no mention of procreation, and the argument that federal benefits should not be extended to gay couples, in part due to the cost was shot down.

On the other hand, in the proposition 8 case, the attorney for the group suing to overturn the lower court’s ruling that the law is unconstitutional made extensive use of procreation as his argument. In that case, the SCOTUS determined that that group did not have standing and allowed to lower court ruling to stand, thereby killing proposition 8 and allowing gay marriage to continue. In addition the same attorney, arguing before SCOTUS to reinstate proposition 8, used the same procreation argument before the US District Court in Hollingsworth v. Perry and was rebuffed. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-144

And on January 14, 2014, in Oklahoma Senior U.S. District Judge Terrence C. Kern ruled in the case of MARY BISHOP, SHARON BALDWIN, SUSAN BARTON, and GAY PHILLIPS, Plaintiffs, v. N UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ex rel. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR stating that that nine years after Oklahoma voters overwhelmingly approved a statewide question to prohibit same-sex marriage, said the ban discriminated against same-sex couples for no rational reason.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/01/oklahoma-gay-marriage-ban-struck-down/

After dissecting the arguments supporters voiced to justify the ban, Kern said that “moral disapproval of homosexuals as a class, or same-sex marriage as a practice, is not a permissible justification.”

Moreover, he said, protecting the sanctity of marriage wasn't a valid reason for the ban, given Oklahoma's high divorce rate of opposite-sex couples, and encouraging procreation wasn't logical either since opposite-sex couples aren't required to say they'll produce offspring in order to get a marriage license.

“Equal protection is at the very heart of our legal system and central to our consent to be governed,” Kern said in his 68-page decision. http://newsok.com/federal-judge-stri...rticle/3923855.

And in Utah this year, a federal judge struck down that state's ban on gay marriage — passed in 2004, the same year as Oklahoma's — and the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed to hear an appeal from Utah on a fast track. In this case, the states vehemently argued that reproduction was central to marriage but that view was not accepted by the court. In the appeal to SCOTUS for a stay of the order-which was successful-the state quietly dropped the procreation argument http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogscr...court.html.csp

Oklahoma is in the same federal circuit as Utah, and Holladay said he hopes the two cases are combined. The U.S. Supreme Court last week put gay marriages on hold in Utah while the appeals court hears the case, but U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said the marriages that already had occurred would be recognized by the federal government.
http://newsok.com/federal-judge-stri...rticle/3923855

Yes there have been rulings in which the procreation argument prevailed some of which still stand..

In 2004 , The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that "there was a rational basis for the Legislature to draw the line between opposite-sex couples, who as a generic group are biologically capable of reproducing, and same-sex couples, who are not."

And of course there are all of those constitutional amendments banning gay marriage But unlike voters, judges must find legal precedent for their decisions.

http://legacy.utsandiego.com/news/st...ocreation.html

Perhaps the most significant case that has yet to be overturned comes out of Arizona in Standhardt v Superior Court This is a complicated case with many facets. Harold Donald Standhardt and Tod Alan Keltner, two men in a committed relationship, applied to the Clerk of the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County, for a marriage license. The Clerk denied the application based on state law which, prohibit marriages between persons of the same sex and define a valid marriage as one between a man and a woman.1 They then petitioned this court to both compel the Clerk to issue them a marriage license. Unlike most other cases the issue of procreation was not simply mentioned but appears to have been a central part of the case. So much so that Justices’ remarks it seem to be the source of nearly all of the talking points used by those who insist that it is a valid reason for denying same sex couples the right to marry. From the court by paragraph:

33. The State contends it has a legitimate interest in encouraging procreation and child-rearing within the stable environment traditionally associated with marriage, and that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples is rationally related to that interest. Because the State's interest in committed sexual relationships is limited to those capable of producing children, it contends it reasonably restricts marriage to opposite-sex couples.15

36. Allowing all opposite-sex couples to enter marriage under Arizona law, regardless of their willingness or ability to procreate, does not defeat the reasonableness of the link between opposite-sex marriage, procreation, and child-rearing.   First, if the State excluded opposite-sex couples from marriage based on their intention or ability to procreate, the State would have to inquire about that subject before issuing a license, thereby implicating constitutionally rooted privacy concerns.
 
37. For these reasons, the State's decision to permit all qualified opposite-sex couples to marry does not defeat the reasonableness of the link between opposite-sex marriage, procreation, and child-rearing
38 Likewise, although some same-sex couples also raise children, exclusion of these couples from the marriage relationship does not defeat the reasonableness of the link between opposite-sex marriage, procreation, and child-rearing.   Indisputably, the only sexual relationship capable of producing children is one between a man and a woman.  …….. Because same-sex couples cannot by themselves procreate, the State could also reasonably decide that sanctioning same-sex marriages would do little to advance the State's interest in ensuring responsible procreation within committed, long-term relationships. 

The case was lost by the petitioners, but keep in mind that that was 2003 before any state had legalized same sex marriage.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/az-court-...s/1346614.html

This case seem to provide all of the major talking points that we hear so often these days , and So far, seems to be the only one still standing , but that may soon change
4 Couples file federal law suit challenging constitutional ban
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...wsuit/4358305/
We’ll be watching this one very closely. Any thoughts as to how it might turn out?

Are there other cases where procreation arguments prevailed and still stand? Probably. This was not intended to be and all inclusive, comprehensive review of all cases where procreation was mentioned. One thing is clear, that as time goes on the courts are less and less receptive to these arguments as representing a compelling state interest in banning same sex marriage.
_______________________________________________________________________
Update:
WASHINGTON -2.26.14- When U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia of the Western District of Texas struck down the Lone Star State's ban on gay marriage on Wednesday, he cited the words of a man who is normally a friend to conservatives: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

And in explaining why the biological ability of many opposite-sex couples to procreate doesn't justify denying equal rights to same-sex couples, Garcia cited Scalia, too.

"[W]hat justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising 'the liberty protected by the Constitution'? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry," Scalia wrote at the time

 

While not all heterosexual couples have procreation potential, no gay couple has the potential to procreate.

 

Irrelevant horse(*)(*)(*)(*)! Are you completely unable to understand my post.? I think so/

 

Not together no, but they can and many will still procreate and raise families together. But that is quite irrelevant to the marriage issue since procreation is not a requisite of marriage.