- Joined
- Nov 3, 2010
- Messages
- 12,510
- Reaction score
- 12,605
- Location
- New York City
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
There is no part of same sex marriage being banned that furthers any state interest.
But, if they are trying to say, for the sake of argument, that procreation is the state's interest in marriage, then they would have to show how they are furthering that state interest by not allowing same sex couples to legally marry but also how that state interest is still furthered by allowing opposite sex couples who cannot have children to enter into marriage. The reason that they would need to address this with such an argument, particularly the federal government and certain states, is because it shows a blatant bias against only those of the same sex not being allowed to marry due to procreation but no regard for those of the opposite sex who are allowed to marry despite not being able to procreate.
I have addressed this several times in the past, but here it is again. There are certain states that allow first cousins to legally marry only if they cannot procreate with each other. They have to show proof that they are infertile or that the woman is over a certain age in order to be able to enter into a legal marriage. These are all recognized as legal marriages by the federal government. This alone shows that the federal government and at least some states cannot claim that procreation is the main state interest in marriage for them and that is why they are banning same sex marriage because they are legally saying the opposite for certain opposite sex couples.
But even if encouraging procreation was a state interest (legally, it isn't), and even if it were a compelling enough interest (it isn't), the state would still have to prove that preventing same sex couples from marrying would somehow cause them to procreate. The infringements on a right must further the problem trying to be solved by the infringement. Homosexuals do not form relationships and then think to themselves "well, since I can't marry my same sex lover, and I may as well marry some person of the opposite sex and make babies with them". That doesn't happen. So, not only would there need to be a compelling interest in procreation, but denying marriage to same sex couples would somehow have to further procreation, which it cannot possibly do.
So the burden on SSM bans are even higher than you might think.