Why only heterosexuals should be allowed to be married

I have been attempting to understand the arguments of those who oppose homosexual marriage- a daunting task.

This is one of the theories that has been floated here on PF
:
The State uses Marriage as tool to ensure that more children are born into married homes, because marriage provides legal protection for children, and reduces the number of children being raised by a single parent.

The accompanying argument is that allowing marriage between same gender/homosexual couples does not advance this state goal, and that is why the State has motivation to not provide the tool of Marriage to same gender/homosexual couples.

This claim is ridiculous.

How ridiculous is the claim? i will explore this in two parts. Both of which will be ignored by those who oppose same sex marriage.

Of the three State's whose marriage laws against gay marriage have been overturned that I have read the decisions on- none of the States make this argument.

Lets first look at the court case in Wisconsin


The question in this case is not whether the state is required to issue marriage licences as a general matter, but whether it
may discriminate against same-sex couples in doing so. Even in cases in which an individual
does not have a substantive right to a particular benefit or privilege, once the state extends
that benefit to some of its citizens, it is not free to deny the benefit to other citizens for any
or no reason on the ground that a “positive right” is at issue. In fact, under the equal
protection clause, “the right to equal treatment . . . is not co-extensive with any substantive
rights to the benefits denied the party discriminated against.”

Therefore, “[t]he State may not . . . selectively deny its protective
services to certain disfavored minorities without violating the Equal Protection Clause.”
DeShaney, 489 U.S. at 197 n.3.

.....defendants do not explain why
marriage is a “positive right” when the state discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation,
but a “negative right” when it discriminates on the basis of race, custody or financial status

Wisconsin did argue that marriage was linked to procreation- which is not the argument about the burden of single parentage.

I am not persuaded by amici’s argument that marriage’s link to procreation is the sole
reason that the Supreme Court has concluded that marriage is protected by the Constitution.
Although several courts have adopted that view, e.g., Dean v. District of Columbia, 653 A.2d
307, 332 (D.C. 1995); Baehr, 852 P.2d at 56, I believe tat it is misguided. First, gay persons
have the same ability to procreate as anyone else and same-sex couples often raise children
together, so there is no reason why a link between marriage and procreation should
disqualify same-sex couples.

and notes- regarding the case of Turner- in which the Court decided that inmates in prison had a right to marriage.

Turner makes it clear that the Court views marriage as serving a variety of
important purposes for the couple involved, which may or may not include procreation, and
that it is ultimately for the couple to decide what marriage means to them.

Skipping down to the State's arguments:

Defendants andamici rely on several interests in their briefs:
(1) preserving tradition;
(2) encouragingprocreation generally and
“responsible” procreation in particular;

This last one is the closest the defendants come to arguing about the burdens of single parenting- with the court noting:

A more recent twist on this argument is that marriage is
needed to help opposite-sex couples procreate “responsibly,” but same-sex couples do not
have the same need.

The court goes on:

One problem with the procreation rationale is that defendants do not identify any
reason why denying marriage to same-sex couples will encourage opposite-sex couples to have
children, either “responsibly” or “irresponsibly.” Geiger, 2014 WL 2054264, at *13; Bishop,
962 F. Supp. 2d. at 1291.

Defendants say that this argument “misses the point” because
“[t]he focus under rational-basis review is whether the challenged statute rationally supports
a State interest, not whether expanding the class of beneficiaries to marriage would harm the
State’s interest.” Dfts.’ Br., dkt. #102, at 65-66 (citing Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361,
383 (1974) (classification will be upheld under rational basis review if “the inclusion of one
group promotes a legitimate governmental purpose, and the addition of other groups would
not”)).

In other words, defendants seem to concede that they have no reason to believe that
marriage between same-sex couples will have an adverse effect on procreation between
marriage between same-sex couples will have an adverse effect on procreation between
opposite-sex couples; however, preferential treatment for opposite-sex couples is permissible
because they “need” marriage to better insure that they will stay together after procreation
and same-sex couples do not need such assistance because they do not procreate
“accidentally.”

The court addresses that

Treating such a fundamental right as just another government benefit that
can be offered or withheld at the whim of the state is an indicator either that defendants fail
to appreciate the implications for equal citizenship that the right to marry has or that they
do not see same-sex couples as equal citizens

And in one of my favorite parts of the Wisconsin decision, the judge notes that Wisconsin does not require heterosexuals to prove that they can reproduce in order to get married- Wisconsin requires first cousins to prove that they cannot reproduce before they are allowed to be married.

IF the States goal is to reduce the number of single parents raising their children with no support from another parent- and marriage is the tool that the State uses- and that is why that tool should not be given to homosexuals- Why then does the state give that tool expressly to sterile heterosexuals?

Where is the justification to exclude same gender couples on the grounds that they will never contribute to the issue of single parenting- while at the same time having a specific provision in the Marriage law that requires some heterosexual couples not to be able to become parents- single or otherwise- before they get married?

The rest will have to wait until later- got other things to do.

But I am enjoying this 'debate'