Citation HERE. Red hi-lites by me.
* * * * * * * *
MR. COOPER: No, Your Honor, we certainly are not. We — we are saying the interest in marriage and the — and the State 's interest and society's interest in what we have framed as responsible pro - procreation is — is vital, but at bottom, with respect to those interests, our submission is that same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are simply not similarly situated.
MR. COOPER: Yes, Your Honor. 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, 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, of adult couples. Suppose, in turn -
MR. COOPER: Your Honor, society's - society's interest in responsible procreation isn't just with respect to the procreative capacities of the couple itself. The marital norm, which imposes the obligations of fidelity and monogamy, Your Honor, advances the interests in responsible procreation by making it more likely that neither party, including the fertile party to that -
* * * * * * * *
Permit me, if you will, to translate what Attorney Cooper is saying: The purpose of marriage is procreation. Not love between two individuals. Not a lifelong commitment. No, it's first and foremost for making babies. This, not so co-incidentally, is also a religious definition for marriage. For example, according to teachings of the Roman Catholic Church:
Traditionally speaking, the primary purpose of marriage is the generation and nurturing of offspring; the second purpose is the mutual help of spouses, and the third is the remedy for concupiscence.
So, the next question is this: if you are married and...
...you and your partner are not infertile
...you marry at a later age
...for a variety of reasons you don't want children
...does this mean that your marriage isn't "traditional"?
Someone want to explain that one to two individuals, say, Fred and Sally, who are both 64 and previously had spouses who passed away? I guess that if Fred and Sally got married it would be neither be "traditional" nor would it be within "marital norm". In fact, according to Attorney Cooper's logic, their marriage is actually abnormal in that it focuses on the emotional needs and desires of two adults. For shame! Add me to the abnormal list, by the way, in that one day when I re-marry I will have no interest in further procreation.
Also, precisely why would the "State" care who or why the Hell someone married? Make the argument about "society", and while I'll disagree, I can at least see some logic to the point. However, I hope that my Libertarian friends are bristling at the notion that the "State" somehow even gets a say in this discussion. Personally I think it's none of the "State's" damn business who or why I marry, thank you very much!
Sometimes the best counter argument is to simply point out what the other person is saying. Slowly. In writing. Parsed out for the logic...or ill-logic...to percolate through.
Post a Comment