www.Prop8Case.com

Contribute Register for Updates

Live Blog Archive

Statement from Maggie

Posted by NOM Team on Wednesday, June 16th at 5:23pm

Share |

"Chuck Cooper is a heckuva lawyer. At stake in this case is the future of marriage in all 50 states, and he's right that this attempt to shut down the debate by constitutionalizing gay marriage will backfire. Americans have a right to vote for marriage. Ted Olson doesn't seem to understand the argument, and judging from today's exchanges neither does Judge Walker. I expect Judge Walker will overrule Prop 8.  But millions of Americans do understand why marriage is the union of husband and wife and I believe the majority of the Supreme Court will as well."

Comments

Dave
June 16, 2010
9:49 pm

 I don't understand why our side used the "procreation" argument. It's too easy to knock down, and it seems the SSM side did just that. Why did we take that tactic? a) all kinds of marriages do not involve procreation (elderly, infertile). b) SSM does not prevent straights from procreating. c) straights can and do procreate without marriage. d) procreation can take place in test tubes nowadays! So why was that our argument? It doesn't make sense. Shouldn't it have been more that legal terms stand for something specific? I mean, we use the word "red" to describe a specific shade of color, and to distinguish it from "green" for example. "Marriage" as a legal word should mean something specific. I don't understand why Cooper and his team got so hung up on procreating; wasn't that just the wrong road to take? Doesn't make sense to me at all why this was his core argument today.

Claire
June 17, 2010
2:13 pm

 I agree with Dave. Also, why was sex mentioned so much in Cooper's argument? Why is the case to protect marriage so much about sex and procreation? There are much stronger arguments to be made.

Jenny H.
June 18, 2010
5:05 am

 The essential purpose and design of "marriage" is the procreation and nurture of the citizenry -- i.e., kids/family. It is the essential concrete natural defining distinction between heterosexual marriage and supposed "gay marriage." That's why this is was the crux of the matter being argued. The *only* other defense of traditional marriage vs. gay marriage is, "Our states have said so, and you're not going to override our state sovereignty this time, Judges." Good old fashioned U.S. state law. Which is perhaps where this whole debate will end up. States need to set the laws and stand firm on the 10th Amendment and sheer political will power. That is the ultimate solution, and probably the only solution liberals can't circumvent.

Abe
June 18, 2010
5:59 pm

 I suggest that you review Cooper's arguments. In essence, he argued for the preservation of marriage as we know it by highlighting the state's interest in stable, potentially procreative relationships. Marriage is a socially protected institution primarily because of the vital importance of responsible procreation, thus procreation is the most significant issue in the debate. Homosexual unions involve no natural procreative potential, thus the state has no interest in establishing it on the same plane as marriage. As to your points a-d: (a) Yes, there are heterosexual marriages that do not involve procreation, but the institution of marriage isn't based on the obligation to reproduce, is it? It's based on the potential for reproduction. (A factor that unmarried, sexually-active couples would do well to consider.) While the elderly and infertile may not be capable of reproduction, their heterosexual relationships are of the same type as those which do have procreative potential, and are relationships which are at least capable of being established at a time when procreation was thought to be possible, before age or infertility had the final say. Homosexual relationships have no such natural procreative potential under any circumstances. (b) OF COURSE what one person does in private doesn't prevent someone else from doing something different in private. That's not what is being debated here. The arguments in this case are about the effects that extend beyond the acts - effects which go beyond the individual's will or preference. Namely, homosexuality has no potential to fulfill the state's interest in marriage - the raising of children by their own parents for the purpose of building strong, society-strengthening families. Homosexual relationships cannot claim to match the value of heterosexual marriages, but nevertheless homosexuals seek the approval and privileges which come with marriage. If such unqualified people are given marriage irregardless of what marriage has always meant, it will be akin to giving something away for free which previously had to be earned, and the thing given, namely marriage, WILL NOT mean as much as it used to. If that were to happen with marriage, some heterosexual couples would claim they don't care if homosexuals get married, but the importance of an institution is based on the value of outcomes, not on personal opinion, right? At least, the state's primary interest is in outcomes, and the interests of the state are what is at issue in this case. There is also a strong moral element which is rarely highlighted in cases being fought on the secular turf of the 9th district. Loosening the definition of an institution that is as fundamentally morality-centered as marriage will serve to diminish that moral center. One of the primary moral-modeling values of marriage is that it is so restrictive. If marriage were to become more cheap and casual, and were to be continually extended to whatever group claimed to be suffering discrimination from its definition, the institution's capacity to model the necessity of careful choice and responsibility for one's actions would be diminished. If one does not hold to a sacred, covenantal view of marriage, or decries basing one's view on an overtly moral foundation, of course there would be a denial of any moral impact! (c) Yes, straights are certainly capable of procreation outside of marriage, and as with homosexuality, that arrangement fails to deliver the committed, relational, familial, responsible procreative atmosphere which is the state's interest in marriage in the first place. People can do all kinds of things in all kinds of ways, but we can and should continue to promote only those ways which accomplish good goals beyond suiting an individual's preferences. (d) I doubt anyone would argue that procreation in a test tube is preferrable to the traditional family, so how does that point serve the SSM side? Cooper WAS making the point that marriage is something specific and unique, and while he was at it, he went deep into WHY we must keep it unique. His understanding of the necessity of a legal definition is implied in his arguments. I hope that helped clear up why our side used the procreation argument. However clear and persuasive Cooper may have been, it will be tough for us to win, since the other side is all about WANT, WANT, WANT, while our side speaks the challenging foreign language of OUGHT TO, OUGHT TO, OUGHT TO.

Add Your Comment Here

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.




National Organization for Marriage

Copyright © 2011 National Organization For Marriage