Gays can’t have kids, so they shouldn’t be allowed to marry, Arizona attorneys argue

[n2doc]

Attorneys for the state are telling a federal judge there’s a good reason Arizona won’t let gays marry: They can’t reproduce, at least not without the help of a third person.

Papers filed in federal court defending the ban say voters, in approving the constitutional amendment in 2008, are entitled to “define marriage for their community.” But the lawyers also are arguing to U.S. District Court Judge John Sedwick there’s a public purpose in the state getting into the business of regulating private relationships: Ensuring that children are, whenever possible, raised by a biological mother and biological father.

“Only man-woman couples are capable of furthering the state’s interest in linking children to both of their biological parents,” argued attorneys from the Alliance Defending Freedom. And they said the vast majority of such couples produce their own biological children.

But gay marriages, the lawyers said, “do not advance that compelling state interest” because they “can never provide a child with both her biological mother and her biological father.” About the closest they can come, the legal papers argue, is by involving a third person who will be a biological parent.


Read more: http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2014/07/23/az-gay-marriage-no-kids-attorneys-argue/

I guess they will have to tell all the retirees who wish to marry or remarry, no can do.

[William769]

1. And what about those who are Barron?

And those that don't have good one's that swim?

That's the most ludicrous argument that they have.

[cyberswede]

2. Or...gasp...people who don't want children?

[William769]

3. Thaks, you are right!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. If a couple turns out to be infertile do they have to get divorced?

How much time do they have to produce a baby before they have to split up? Can they do in vitro fertilization or use a surrogate, or does the baby have to be the natural spawn of both parents (as the state seems to be suggesting)? If they do have a child and it dies do they have to produce another to replace it, and if they don't, do they have to divorce?

After all, if your marriage doesn't produce a baby, it's totally pointless.

[IronLionZion]

20. Those couples must be deported

since its Arizona. It's in the bible somewhere, probably under Idioticus 6:66.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

5. So women of a certain age can't marry either?

Kids can't get adopted by heterosexual parents who can't conceive because they wouldn't be allowed to marry and many state laws require adoption by a married couple.

[uppityperson]

6. What about those of us too old to procreate? What an idiot.

[shenmue]

7. Well, that excludes me

I have early menopause.

Look at it this way. It means I don't have to marry an idiot from the Alliance Defending Freedom!

[valerief]

8. Men shouldn't be allowed to marry. They can't have kids either. nt

[Politicalboi]

26. LOL!

[blkmusclmachine]

9. This old, discredited argument. Every court that hears this "defense," throws it out.

But, I bet Scalia WOULD SAY that Corporations CAN marry. Because of the Corporations' "religious freedom."

[Downwinder]

11. What is a Corporate merger?

[gratuitous]

27. It's apparently all they've got

This tired "argument" (I debase the term) has been rejected in court after court at both state and federal levels all across the country. Apparently it's the only reason these clowns can come up with, and they're fixing to get spanked by another court. If I wasn't so convinced of the "traditional" bona fides of these attorneys and their clients, I'd almost think they enjoyed a good judicial spanking, seeing how many they've volunteered for on this very point.

[sheshe2]

10. I find this quote terrifying!

“Only man-woman couples are capable of furthering the state’s interest"

This is not or at least should not be about the state's interest. That is downright creepy.

[Ineeda]

18. That sounds like something Mao would say,

or Kim Jong-un, or some medieval feudal lord. Very creepy.

[sheshe2]

19. Yes it does, Ineeda.

Procreate for the state. I think I will be sick now.

[RKP5637]

12. These people are so fucken stupid they sound like a SNL skit! n/t

[RKP5637]

13. "Breed for Arizona," I guess. n/t

[DURHAM D]

14. This is the exact argument used on Prop 8 before the Supremes.

It didn't work and this is a settled matter.

[LittleBlue]

15. I feel sorry for the elderly and people with fertility problems

No marriage for you.

[Throd]

16. I know some straight people who SHOULDN"T have kids. What about them?

[pnwmom]

17. So he's for traditional gay marriage: gay men marrying straight women,

(usually unknowing because he's in denial) or gay women marrying straight men -- in unions that almost always end in divorce but often produce kids.

And this is good for those kids how?

[joeybee12]

21. My head hurts from the stupidity...

Two men cannot reproduce, but can adopt, as can two women, as well as a man and a woman, so if for some reason a man and woman can't conceive, they should not be allowed to be married and therefore the state must require a fertility test prior to issuing a marriage license.

[mnhtnbb]

22. I really want to post something that's bound to get hidden, so I won't really say it.

I mean, what's going to come next?

Some stamp of approval on certain anatomical areas of the body?

How about "Jesus approves this _____________ for marriage."

[joeybee12]

25. Yeah, and what if the woman isn't attractive...

And the ones who want to regulate this say, But hey, you won't want to have sex with her, so you won't have kids...marriage denied.

And yes, I only included if the women were unattractive, in keeping with the war on women...doesn't matter if the woman is attracted to the man, because, after all, in their minds, women don't matter.

[City Lights]

23. So any infertile person should also be denied the opportunity to marry?

Is that what you're saying, AZ attorneys? Or are you singling out gays?

Sheesh. When I lived in AZ for a brief spell during the 2000s, I was assured that AZ was on the verge of turning blue. Seems like it's getting worse there rather than better.

[lapislzi]

24. My three stepchildren are not my biological children.

Do I have to get divorced now? What about my biological child? I did my duty and reproduced! Shouldn't I get a reward?

~Confused

[Swede Atlanta]

28. This is the "traditional" argument by conservatives against marriage equality.......

They maintain that the ability to pro-create without the help of a third party is the defining criteria for marriage.

If that is the case then there should be a pre-marital test for fertility before issuing a marriage license. The woman has to be confirmed to produce viable eggs and the man has to beat off and shoot into a cup so his semen can be checked.

But the question precedent is whether or not the two individuals, assuming they appear to have the physical capability (egg and semen are viable), want to or will attempt or have children.

So it sounds like in order to get a marriage license you have to demonstrate you can have kids (without fertility treatments, etc.) and perhaps even sign a pledge that you plan to attempt or have children.

So what happens if you use birth control and don't even try to have a child or you can't. Does that mean your marriage is dissolved? Who decides when it is dissolved? Do you have to report how often you have had intercourse, the woman's ovulation cycle, the amount and quality of the sperm to some governmental agency? Talk about governmental intrusion.

That is why this is a joke. Many heterosexuals choose not to have children. So is intent enough to disqualify you from getting married?