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.Waaaaaaait a second. Only boy-girl sex can produce unplanned pregnancies—and that's a good thing? The very same sanctimonious whiners who say they're only hating gay people to protect family values and the kids and stuff ... Now they want to encourage unplanned pregnancies? Even though all the research in the history of forever shows that unplanned pregnancies actually undermine those precious boy-girl relationships? And are also bad for women. And their children. And society. And the almighty dollar. But let's just put all that stuff aside so the bigots can 'splain how this isn't totally bugfuck crazytalk:
The traditional marriage laws "reflect a unique social difficulty with opposite-sex couples that is not present with same-sex couples — namely, the undeniable and distinct tendency of opposite-sex relationships to produce unplanned and unintended pregnancies," wrote Clement, a solicitor general under President George W. Bush. "Unintended children produced by opposite-sex relationships and raised out-of-wedlock would pose a burden on society."Waaaaaaait a second. So unplanned pregnancies are a bad thing after all? And only heterosexual couples can impose this "social difficulty" and "burden on society" by getting accidentally knocked up, so only they need marriage to protect us from the threat of their children? That's the new legal argument against marriage equality? Marriage should be limited to one man and one woman because Bristol Palin's accidental, unplanned out-of-wedlock baby threatens and burdens society.
"It is plainly reasonable for California to maintain a unique institution [referring to marriage] to address the unique challenges posed by the unique procreative potential of sexual relationships between men and women," argued Washington attorney Charles J. Cooper, representing the defenders of Proposition 8. Same-sex couples need not be included in the definition of marriage, he said, because they "don't present a threat of irresponsible procreation."
Well, okay, maybe they have a point. Or maybe, just maybe, they should accept that it's the 21st century, and the number of cranky old people who don't believe in equality is dwindling every day—and most Americans are just fine with that.