Don’t forget, too, that if your marriage does not produce offspring in a timely manner — say, five years — then your marriage should be annulled because the benefits conferred with a marriage license only apply to those with children.

In fact, if you really want to take this argument to its logical conclusion, you should have to have a bun in the oven before the state hands you a marriage license.

Of course, there is more to the argument for prop. 8 than just marriage = kids. There is also the “We’ve always done it this way” argument (at least, in recent history and don’t bother looking in the old testament because we don’t count that. Except where it says no gays.) And the “Allowing more people to get married will result in fewer people getting married!” argument. (huh?) I like the “52% of Californians voted to discriminate!” argument — after all, since more than 70% of voters were in favor of miscegenation laws, we kept those going. Slavery too, was pretty popular. And, of course, the main argument: “If we let gay people get married, who knows what terrible things could happen! Wooooo! Scary! Run and hide!”

All I know is the best wedding I’ve been to in a long time was two beautiful, wonderful, loving men who are way better parents on a bad day than I could ever hope to be. Great food too.

Yep. We’re a hetero married couple incapable of procreation over here at my house — just waiting for the state to mail us our Notice of Annulment. ;)

Mary- your comment makes no sense. Of course all gay people aren’t infertile. I think what Jeanne’s article clearly says is that if the entire purpose of marriage is procreation, then it stands to reason that straight people who can’t procreate shouldn’t be married.

Also, some gay people are infertile. We’re just like everyone else, some of us are black and some are white. Some are poor and some are rich. Some are sleazy and some aren’t. And some of us struggle with infertility and others don’t.

Mary — if procreation is the only reason for marriage as some argue, then, yes, gay marriage wouldn’t make sense. But then, neither would allowing those too old to bear children to get married. Nor would allowing people who did not intend to have children to get married — after all, if marriage is simply about spawning, then there is no reason to marry if you’re not going to have children. And, of course, those who are infertile, well, they can’t have children so no marriage for them either. In fact, if bearing children is the only reason people should get married, then they should be required to have a bun in the oven before they can get a marriage license. At the very least, if the marriage does not result in offspring within, say, three years, then it would be annulled.

If that doesn’t make sense, it’s because none of it does. People who are infertile can conceive in other ways, enlist a surrogate, or even just adopt. The same is true of the elderly and gays and lesbians.

But marriage is NOT just an agreement to reproduce. It is a commitment between consenting adults who want to share their lives. It may include children and it may not. If it does include children, it may involve adoption, foster care, surrogate mothers, sperm donors, or any of a host of other ways families come together. And all of that is fine because, when it is all said and done, it’s about love.

Being gay or lesbian doesn’t preclude conceiving a child with a person of the opposite sex. Gay men and lesbians procreate all the time via assisted reproduction (sperm donation, egg donation, surrogacy, IUI, IVF, etc.). All that’s bypassed is the sex part — the rest works just fine.

If we’re going to deny marriage to everyone who can’t procreate through vaginal intercourse, then we’re knocking a lot more heterosexual couples out of the park — now we have to annul the marriages of all opposite-sex couples who can only procreate via the above-mentioned methods. That’s a lot of forced divorces!