In the Q and A of the oral arguments before the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, it is my belief that this exchange is the key exchange that gives the Justices no choice but to rule it unconstitutional.
Justice Kagan: “Mr. Cooper, could I just understand your argument. In reading the briefs, it seems as though your principal argument is that same-sex and opposite — opposite-sex couples are not similarly situated because opposite-sex couples can procreate, same-sex couples cannot, and the State's principal interest in marriage is in regulating procreation. Is that basically correct?”
Cooper: “I -- Your Honor, that's the essential thrust of our —our position, yes.”
That’s all they have?
The state needs to regulate procreation?
That is why same sex marriage is forbidden in California? Because gays can’t conceive?
Well then maybe we should add to the list of people who cannot be married in California:
- Heterosexual couples in their mid-fifties and later
- Heterosexual couples of any age who are infertile
- Disabled veterans who have had their private parts blown off.
- Women who have had a coat hanger abortion and cannot bear children now.
Either that, or Prop 8 is as wrong as a three dollar bill.