The Times has an article today about a judge’s refusal to dismiss the federal marriage equality lawsuit:
In the courtroom, Mr. Cooper’s arguments seemed to fall of their own weight. The government should be allowed to favor opposite-sex marriages, Mr. Cooper said, in order “to channel naturally procreative sexual activity between men and women into stable, enduring unions.â€
Judge Walker appeared puzzled. “The last marriage that I performed,†the judge said, “involved a groom who was 95 and the bride was 83. I did not demand that they prove that they intended to engage in procreative activity. Now, was I missing something?â€
Mr. Cooper said no.
“And I might say it was a very happy relationship,†Judge Walker said.
“I rejoice to hear that,†Mr. Cooper responded, returning to his theme that only procreation matters.
Two things I would like to see explained but am not holding my breath waiting for:
1.) Why is it the business or interest of the government to direct anyone’s sexual activity in any direction? I thought conservatives were all about “personal responsibility.” This is one area where I agree with them: a person’s sexuality should be his or her own responsibility and no one else’s, least of all the government’s.
2.) How does allowing gay and lesbian people to channel their sexual activity into stable unions in any way detract from the ability of straight people to channel their own sexual activity into such unions?
@Daniel: Exactly. Those are among the very questions that the judge has previously said he wants discussed in the upcoming trial, and I will be happy to see the pro-Prop 8 folks’ twisted, groundless logic exposed in court.