Tuesday, March 26, 2013

"Several justices also challenged the notion that procreation was the key to the state’s interest in marriage. Justice Stephen G. Breyer asked Charles J. Cooper, who was arguing for opponents of same-sex marriage, about sterile opposite-sex couples. “There are lots of people who get married who can’t have children,” he said.

Justice Elena Kagan raised the question of a man and a woman over 55 years old seeking to get married, despite the fact that they would not be able to have children. Mr. Cooper agreed that the court could not constitutionally ban such marriages, but returned to the hazards of a “redefinition” of marriage.


Justice Antonin Scalia remarked wryly, “I suppose we could have a questionnaire at the marriage desk asking, ‘Are you fertile?'” When Justice Kagan noted that people were frequently asked about their age by the government, Justice Scalia joked about Senator Strom Thurmond, who fathered in his 70s and served in the Senate until age 100.


The court should not, he said, “put a stop to this democratic debate” over what he called “an agonizingly difficult issue.”


Mr. Olson said that a ban on same-sex marriage would have the effect of “labeling their most sacred relationship” as “not O.K.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-case.html?hp&_r=0


So here you have a few excerpts of a NYtimes article pointing to issues related to gay marriage which I was pondering over in the past. I am glad that even the court acknowledges that it is  “an agonizingly difficult issue.” Somehow I have found peace with it, but not necessarily an answer. Rather I have surrendered to pragmatism. 

No comments:

Post a Comment