Prop 8 trial: Historian says marriage about more than procreation

[WillParkinson]

Prop 8 trial: Historian says marriage about more than procreation
By The Associated Press
01.12.2010 1:55pm EST

(San Francisco) A Harvard professor testifying in a case challenging California’s gay marriage ban said Tuesday that procreation is historically not the only function of marriage.

In her second day of testimony, Nancy Cott, a U.S. history professor and the author of a book on marriage as a public institution, disputed a statement by a defense lawyer that states have a compelling interest to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples for the sake of procreation.

Cott said marriage also has served an economic purpose, with each spouse doing different jobs in the partnership. As the purposes of marriage have changed, the reasons to bar same-sex couples from marrying have gone away, she said.

“It seems to me that by excluding same-sex couples from the ability to marry and to engage in this institution, that society is actually denying itself another resource for stability and social growth,” she said.

http://www.365gay.com/news/prop-8-trial-historian-says-marriage-about-more-than-procreation/

[sakabatou]

1. Go Nancy!

[Smashcut]

2. I'm following the testimony on FDL. She's doing a great job.

[BOSSHOG]

3. It must hurt to have a conservative brain

There are many straight couples with no children. My wife and I have been married more than 30 years, with no kids and we maintain the sanctity of marriage, but would never do anything to prevent homosexuals from getting married.

And if marriage is for procreation how come there are so many children born out of wedlock?

And if christians are so fucking concerned about marriage how come so many of them get divorced?

And thus I ramble.

[racaulk]

5. Exactly right.

That's why the "marriage is for procreation" argument is so absurd and will, hopefully, not stand up in this court of law. Consider:

--Marriage is not contingent on the straight couple procreating in the future.

--Straight people do not need to be married to procreate (case in point, my parents).

--Some straight couple marry and choose not to procreate.

--There is nothing preventing post-menopausal women or infertile men and women from marrying.

--If one member of the married couple has a child with a person other than their spouse, this does not automatically annul their marriage.

--If a straight couple needs medical assistance (i.e., IVF) to assist in their procreation, there is no requirement for their doctor to be a party to their marriage. The same for surrogate mothers and egg and sperm donors.

--If every gay person in the world were married, that sure won't stop straight people from procreating.

This is really a weak argument on the part of the pro-Prop 8 side, and although such arguments may work on the ignorant masses that vote on such ballot box measures, they are so logically unsound that I can't imagine that they will stand in a court of law.

[racaulk]

4. Another entry in the list of "things we already know, but sadly need to prove."

Cott has been giving great testimony so far. I'm glad she's on our side!

K&R

[mrbarber]

6. Yeah, but she's just one of dem eduacated book learning types.

And why is she even teaching when she should be in kitchen! More of the liberal communist agenda I tell you!

God, even typing that made my brain hurt.

[PDJane]

7. Good. It should have.

It proves you have one.

[sui generis]

8. clearly, or we would require children as a condition of marriage.

also to accept that marriage is ABOUT procreation suggests that sex only happens in marriage, and only with the person to whom one is married. And that it is only for the purpose of making babies. Ever.

Why is it we need to spell this shit out in big sarcastic letters? - the counterargument is not even an argument at all.


Ah well. At least a registered expert said it, for any of us who might have had doubts about our own conclusions. :P

[RetiredTrotskyite]

9. So Sad That The Obvious Needs to Be Repeated

I was following this on a blog with updates and I could only shake my heads. So far the bigots are showing themselves to be the asshats we know them to be.