Associated Press
Paul Clement at the U.S. Supreme Court
When we last heard from Paul Clement, he was very nearly convincing the U.S. Supreme Court to destroy the entirety of the Affordable Care Act. What's he up to now? Clement has been hired by House Republicans to defend the Defense of Marriage Act.
And he's pursuing a creative approach (via Feministe).
Marriage should be limited to unions of a man and a woman because they alone can "produce unplanned and unintended offspring," opponents of gay marriage have told the Supreme Court.
By contrast, when same-sex couples decide to have children, "substantial advance planning is required," said Paul D. Clement, a lawyer for House Republicans.
This unusual defense of traditional marriage was set out last week in a pair of opening legal briefs in the two gay marriage cases to be decided by the Supreme Court this spring.
I admittedly have not yet read Clement's full brief, so there may be a more compelling aspect to this, but the argument seems to be a fairly desperate attempt to find a legitimate difference between straight couples and gay couples -- and this is the best they could come up with. Straight couples can suddenly find themselves parents-to-be, and as a result, the state has an interest in providing them with the ability to legally marry. Same-sex couples, meanwhile, need to "plan" to have kids, lessening the state's interest.
Or something.
This doesn't seem like an especially compelling argument, but that's not what bothers me. What's irritating, rather, is that you and I are paying for Clement to make this argument.
Leave a Comment:
I don't know. It is as logical as any other wingnut thought (loosely used, of course).
Wingnuts have issues with thought processing, logic and reason.
I'm confused. Is the GOP saying that the only people who are qualified to be parents and allowed to marry are hets who are either:
If one has the habit of taking long walks during storms without an umbrella, there there is the implicit intention of getting wet. Or is that too difficult for GOP doorknob lickers to grasp?
Clement is basically arguing that marriage should be restricted because only a man and woman can have children which can be, in some cases, unplanned. Therefore, the state should be allowed to determine which parties can marry. I don't think he put much thought into the argument because women can have children with a man and not be married. The ability to have natural born children has nothing to do with marital status.
And of course, my partner and I, who are too old to conceive intentionally or unintentionally, can get married for financial reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with love and/or committment (other than to convenience) and our marriage is as high-standing as those these morons are promoting. Why? Because we're "one man and one woman."
Which shows the "value" of this line of baloney, the same value as any other line of baloney touted by these drooling morons.
Their arguments are so convoluted and make no sense!
My 31 year old nephew got married a little over a year ago. While the CAN have children, neither one wants to have children, so they will not have them.
I understand all the arguments about this, but it comes down to trying to control people is not freedom. They just want to control people. Elderly marry, with no children "accidentally" going to happen, single people have children. Some people work very hard and pay dearly to have a child.
Some people desperately want children, try and can't.
Also, some people do not fit the role being assigned to them. And they should not HAVE TO fit someone else's "expectations" or "beliefs".
People are not yours to control, that is all there is to it. The world is not going to end. Plenty of single parents out there. Plenty of childless marriages. Plenty of huge families.
I recently dipped my toe (briefly) in the genealogy pool. I have to say, there were several large families with many children not living. I have come to the possibly wrong conclusion that LDS opposition to marriage equality has to do with sorting out the genealogical lines.
Also, having many children is probably good for the church, as it tends to keep it going along.
People with rigid views about family and having children is required within a religious context. But we are not going to all fit, and that is fine. My cousin married and has no children. I have no children. So?
It's not up to THEM to run peoples' lives. Deprive someone of full and equal opportunity in the pursuit of happiness.
There will be arguments, but it comes back to that. It's not up to them to say how people live and whether they "can" have children. Same sex couples have children in a variety of ways, as do opposite sex couples, single or married. Children of a mistress or whatever. I already mentioned the childless marriages.
It's almost comical, in a way. Reproduction has long been one of the arrows in the other side's quiver of arguments, but usually they argue along the lines of "Straight people can have kids and gay people can't" and somehow that means same-sex relationships must be prohibited. Now, when it suits them, they admit that same-sex couples can have kids (it just takes more planning).
So this is the new argument? Straight people are irresponsible horn-dogs and that's the reason why hetero privilege must be preserved!? And Republicans portray themselves as the party of personal responsibility.
Huh? Spontaneity makes better babies?
Doubt it, but I will say that both of my kids and all 3 of my grandkids were "spontaneous" and they're all pretty awesome . . .
No, it's all just about preserving hetero privilege. They don't have any rational arguments for that, so they just make excuses.
As another example, take this from the Family Research Council (what the @!$%# kind of 'research' do they actually do, anyway?) in which they argue that LGBT people should be denied equal rights because voters in some states have said that they should be so denied and that because voters in other states have said the opposite means that the rights of LGBT do not need to be protected. Makes perfect nonsense.
In part, that has been a Catholic Church rational...but falls apart since it would forbid marriage between any couple unable to bear children on their own, be that because of accident, injury, cancer, age, etc.
Or who choose not to reproduce. It's not kids that they really care about. They just can't stand the thought of matching genitals getting too near each other. They should just find something else to think about and let everyone else get on with their lives.
because they alone can "produce unplanned and unintended offspring,"
True that - That's how I got both my kids. That's why it says it right there in the Constitution....Or not.
Well, that seals it. ONLY gay marriage from here on out...
So, if a gay couple adopts an unplanned and unintended offspring from a heterosexual couple, then is that gay couple given a court blessing to marry?
Although the state still has no compelling interest in preventing others from having that ability.
Clement's a very smart guy. I'd be pretty surprised if there isn't more to it than this.
There could hardly be less but it sounds to me like the kind of thing you say when you've got nothing.
Ya plays the cards ya's dealt.
When the facts are on your side, pound on the facts.
When the law is on your side, pound on the law.
When neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound on the table.
@DC
I heard a different version.
When the facts are against you, argue the law.
When the law is against you, argue the facts.
When the law and the facts are against you, call your opponent a schmuck.
Planning for kids is a bad thing? Me thinks that would actually make things better in this country, to keep more people/kids out of poverty, lessen child abuse and prevent things like abortion.
That doesn't even wave its hand at proving Constitutionality, as it flies past on its way to Crazyville.
what does having children have to do with getting married? Crazy is taking the fast train this morning.
You don't understand. The state wants you to be a breed sow...
This would be a good place for some breeder jokes.
If Clement gets this to fly, it should be known as the Maury Povich defense.
"Marriage should be limited to unions of a man and a woman because they alone can "produce unplanned and unintended offspring,"
So by this logic women (& men) that cannot reproduce unintended offspring should NOT be married either. Wow, gotta love the tragic irony of the "logic" used in drafting that sentiment......
The problem with this line of argument is that banning gay marriage does nothing in regard to the "problem" of unintended offspring. If you want to force people to stay together after having children, then you should ban divorce for couples who have had kids. Plain and simple.
I'm sure all of the straight people who can't reproduce, whether due to a congenital problem, an injury or disease or a voluntary sterilization procedure, will be glad to know Paul Clement and the Republican Party believe they have no right to marry.
From the article:
"Same-sex couples need not be included in the definition of marriage, he said, because they “don’t present a threat of irresponsible procreation.”
The way I read this, the Lawyer representing the House of Representatives is trying to redefine marriage as the appropriate punishment for getting pregnant out-of-wedlock. But I thought conservatives were opposed to "redefining" marriage...
That has to be the stupidest legal argument I ever heard. The only real legal argument is that marriage is traditionally a state matter and not a federal matter (10th amendment). But that does not dispose of the fact that California gave the right and is now taking it away and raises US Constitutional issues. I do not think the Roberts Court is ready to declare gay marriage a right under the US Constitution and will turn it back to the states. What it does with California's Prop 8 is anyone's guess.
Gee, if just that darned Loving v. Virginia precedent weren't out there... You know, the one that said states' rights were trumped by the equal protection clause...
The difference between Loving and this case is that Loving involves a constitutionally protected class, race. Sexual orientation is not a constitutionally protect class. Therefore, it is easy for the SCOTUS to say it is a state matter. That only leaves the other argument about granting a right and then taking it away which may violate the US Constitution.
What a bizzare world we live in.
Ancient Chinese Curse:
"May you live in interesting times"
Actually, it's not an "ancient chinese curse". It's pretty modern.
And it's Norwegian. As far as you know.
Regardlse, it is a curse we all live with.
My female companion and I have been together for 12 years, not being legally married has never presented any problems for us. We both have children ( now grown up) who have done just fine. On the other hand previous marriages for both of us served only as legal opportunities for our spouses to torment us through the court system. We are committed to each other and can't see any benefit to being legally married, but if people feel the need to marry they should be given that opportunity regardless of their circumstances. I just can't help but wonder how many people with that piece of paper have such a perfect union as we do.
FYI - Common-law marriage, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Common-law marriage, sometimes spelled without a hyphen and also known as sui juris marriage, informal marriage or marriage by habit and repute, is an irregular form of marriage that can be legally contracted in an extremely limited number of jurisdictions.
Common-law marriage is different from non-marital relationship contracts, which involve two people living together without considering themselves each other's spouses and/or without legal recognition as spouses in the jurisdiction where the contract was formed. Non-marital relationship contracts are not necessarily recognized from one jurisdiction to another, whereas common-law marriages are legally valid marriages worldwide (if the parties complied with the requirements to form a valid marriage while living in a jurisdiction that allows this form of marriage to be contracted), as was historically the case under the common law of England (hence the name, "common-law marriage").
Yet, the term "common-law marriage" is sometimes used as a synonym for "non-marital relationship contract", as well as for domestic partnership and reciprocal beneficiaries relationship. Sui juris marriages may be recognized as one of these other interpersonal relationships in foreign jurisdictions, especially if the parties to a true common-law marriage are not able to prove that they conformed to the requirements to contract a common-law marriage in their home jurisdiction. Common law marriage is often contrasted with the ceremonial marriage.
If same-sex couples want to generate new offspring more than "substantial advance planning" is required. Another individual of the opposite sex is required even if the fertilization takes place in a test tube - that is a heterosexual union of sorts is required (test-tube or petri-dish unions seem to be accepted if the intended parents are heterosexual).
Actually, maybe planning is not always required. What if some eggs and sperm accidentally got mixed in a lab, or as a result of a mistaken or retracted order for a new baby? Since according to anti-abortion extremists new persons will be created, who will be the parents?
By the way, if a heterosexual couple wants a baby, but one or both of them has defective gametes so that gametes from another have to be brought in, how many people are involved in the marriage? How about the case of a surrogate mother, whoever supplies the gametes?
I presume the answers are in the Bible.
Yep, in the begat section.
A grand slam! Insulting gays, childless couples and bastard children in one big gotcha!
Such perfection of moronic thinking should be rewarded. Oh Da-a-annn.. where is that fickled finger of fate.
Points for remembering the <a href="http://youtu.be/aYG6L9jcFOE">Flying Fickle Finger of Fate</a>!
Or as we call it, the trifecta.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYG6L9jcFOE
Very Interesting (could not help myself ;)
the 1st Flying Fickle Finger of Fate was awarded to the US Congress
Wait... what?
I can't even wrap my mind around this one. Usually when right-wingers come up with crap ideas and excuses for stuff I can sorta kinda understand where they're coming from, even if I vehemently disagree with it. But this... what??
Help me understand this, please. My sweetie and I are a heterosexual couple, she well past childbearing. Does this argument mean that the Federal Government has an equal interest in preventing us from marrying as it does blocking Rachel and Susan?
Because our chance of becoming unexpectedly pregnant is quite a bit less than that of a young lesbian couple, unless the Court is persuaded by Todd Akin.
Umm..... Does this mean my two planned children (with heterosexual parents) are illegitimate?
What does randall terry think of this...
Randall Terry thinks?
And many same-sex couples adopt children who were unplanned. In fact, I believe that is one of the compelling reasons to grant same-sex marriage equal rights, isn't it? Doesn't that essentially imply that their argument is self-defeating?