I've spent a bit of time reviewing the various articles written about the arguments made yesterday in the marriage equality case before SCOTUS. It appears that the most substantive argument of the pro discrimination side had to do with the idea that marriage is really all about biological kids. Marriage "binds" parents to their biological children.
Of course, the many leaks in this sieve are apparent. The idea that without marriage parents aren't bound to their children is so ridiculous, it deserves no response, just as does the idea that if parents get married, they'll thereafter be forever bound to their children. I personally know many parents who never married yet have incredibly wonderful relationships with their children. I also know a few parents who married and then abandoned their children for various reasons. And then there are the numerous adopted children who are closely bonded with their adoptive parents, both married and no longer married. I've seen articles that have addressed these devastating weaknesses to this argument.
However, what I've not yet seen is the querying of why, if marriage is only about children, does it bestow so many benefits that have nothing to do with children. Why does it permit a person to make end of life decisions for a partner? Why does it provide a partner with a right to inherit - whether or not there were children born during the marriage? Why does it grant a partner the right to receive various government benefits such as Social Security? And the list goes on.
fact, the benefits that are derived from marriage that have nothing to do with children far exceeds any that have to do with children. A parent is required to support his or her children financially whether married or not. A parent has the right to spend time with a child whether married or not. A parent has the right to make decisions about his or her child whether married or not. In fact, I can not think of any aspect of a parent/child relationship that exists inside of marriage that does not also exist outside of a marriage.
If marriage is indeed primarily about tying biological children to their parents, then it needs to only address issues about children.
I'd like to have seen the attorneys arguing for marriage equality to have addressed this aspect of the fallacy of the desperate argument of the pro discrimination side, since I believe it's the most critical one. Same sex partners are asking for all the same rights and responsibilities that are imposed on opposite sex partners, not just those relating to children. Perhaps the attorneys did address this aspect and it's just that none of the articles I've read have. I think, though, that it's a particularly important one.