Getting past the hype…finally.
Too bad it's in Canada. Yesterday the Ontario Court of Appeals upheld the legal right of same-sex couples to marry. The court's opinion stated rather simply what should be blindingly obvious to anyone with more than a few functioning brain cells.
The [Attorney General of Canada] has not shown that the opposite-sex requirement in marriage is rationally related to the encouragement of procreation and child rearing. ... The law is both overinclusive and underinclusive. The ability to 'naturally' procreate and the willingness to raise children are not prerequisites of marriage for opposite-sex couples. ... Simultaneously, the law is underinclusive because it excludes same-sex couples that have and raise children.
Finally. Someone in authority has said it. What does the ability to "naturally" procreate have to do with marriage? There are a few states that require blood tests for a marriage license. I'm not aware of any who require that both parties prove they are fertile and capable of procreation. Nor have I heard of an incident where a couple's marriage has been declared null and void because of their inability or lack of desire to procreate. (At least not one instigated by the state. I'm sure more than a few guys have used that one to get out of a marriage they didn't want.) There are quite a few childless couples who enjoy the legal and financial benefits of marriage. In point of fact, no one would even dream of denying these couples the right to marriage.
When it comes right down to it, what does the ability to naturally procreate have to do with sex? With the Supreme Court set to rule on Lawrence v. Texas in the next week or two there has been much discussion about sodomy in recent months. Sodomy is defined as non-procreative sex acts. This includes sex with a condom or any other means of birth control, people. But let's set that aside for the moment and get back to couples who, for whatever reason, are unable to conceive. Can you imagine anyone suggesting that such couples--who are physically incapable of procreating--should refrain from sexual relations with each other? Even buttheads like Santorum, who think the government has a vested intrest interest in regulating activies in the bedroom, would draw the line at sexual relations between married couples. All the absurd rhetoric from the right is aimed at homosexuals, fornicators and adulterers. Do you really think that if push came to shove Santorum would suggest outlawing birth control or outlawing sex that is merely an affirmation of the love between husband and wife and not intended to produce children? He may be an idiot, but he's not stupid. The problem is, no one stops to consider such things, focused as they are on a particular class of people that does not include themselves.
Well, maybe it's about time they did.