dixon76710;917657[B said:
]......................But as Skinner, Loving, and Zablocki indicate, marriage is traditionally linked to procreation and survival of the human race. Heterosexual couples are the only couples who can produce biological offspring of the couple....[/B]And the link between opposite-sex marriage and procreation is not defeated by the fact that the law allows opposite-sex marriage regardless of a couple’s willingness or ability to procreate. The facts that all opposite-sex couples do not have children and that single-sex couples raise children and have children with third party assistance or through adoption do not mean that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples lacks a rational basis. Such over- or under-inclusiveness does not defeat finding a rational basis....
http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/co.../759341opn.pdf .
The impetus behind marriage today has changed significantly from what it started out to be. If you want to go back to that original idea of marriage, so be it, but you will be hard pressed to find anyone willing to take the steps to do so. Not since marital privacy was recognized.
You see, marriage used to be all about procreation. But then we heterosexuals decided we wanted more privacy and less government intrusion into marriage. We did away with the majority of the aspects of the marriage contract that were associated exclusively with procreation... and we're working on getting rid of the one remaining obligation (unless, of course, you can think of another)... assumed paternity. Once that is gone, there will be nothing in the marriage contract (which legally defines what marriage is in this country) that relates exclusively to procreation. The government's interest in procreation has been replaced, and more importantly in my mind, by an interest in raising children in marriage regardless of how they got there.
No lets take one of the links you provided earlier in this thread.......The one you quoted above.... according to Skinner, marriage was the necessary and mandatory prerequisite of procreation. Look at the date on this case. This case was decided in 1942. Pre-Griswold, pre-repeal of sodomy laws. At the time it was basically illegal for a married couple to engage in any type of sexual activity that was not conducive to procreation. It was also illegal (and, technically, still is illegal in some states) to engage in any sexual activity outside of marriage. So, of course, in 1942 procreation was viewed as a logical pre-requisite of marriage. This is no longer the case.
The obligations associated with the marriage contract at the time of Skinner were these: A married couple had to allow for the possibility of procreation (no contraception, no sexual conduct that was not conducive to procreation); they had to refrain from having sex with someone outside the marriage; and the husband was legally considered the father of any children born to his wife. Add to these obligations the fact that it was illegal to engage in any sexual activity outside of marriage and you have a compelling State interest in promoting procreation in marriage. That was the state of marriage as seen by the justices in the Skinner case. Of course, they believed that the ability to procreate was a logical prerequisite to marriage. Marriage was the only situation in which one could legally procreate at all.
Where did same-sex couples fit into this concept of marriage? They didn't. They couldn't legally engage in the contract... not because they didn't fit the legal definition of who could marry – up until the early '70's that was gender neutral in every state that had a legal definition. But the State could prove that it had a compelling State interest in promoting procreation back then... there were laws to back it up. They could prove that it was necessary to exclude same-sex couples from marriage to further that interest because same-sex couples could only engage in illegal sexual activity that was not conducive to procreation; it was immediately recognizable that they would be unable to procreate; and, procreation was one of the primary aims in the government's regulation of marriage.
But civil marriage has radically changed since then. The only obligation in the contract that relates exclusively to procreation is assumed paternity – and even that is going the way of the dodo. So the elements of the marriage contract that proved the State's compelling interest have all but disappeared. The government allows married couples to use contraception; it allows them to engage in sexual activity that is not conducive to procreation; adultery – while still a grounds for divorce, has been either repealed as a crime or is not enforced; and, in an increasing number of states, it is now possible to challenge paternity in marriage. Add to this the repeal of fornication laws and marriage is no longer the necessary, mandatory prerequisite to procreation. The connection in marriage at the time of Skinner no longer exists. Procreation has become simply one of the options that allow for children to be present in a married family – one of the most used options, but an option nonetheless.
But you'll notice that Skinner says something very particular. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence of our race. Just because marriage is no longer a mandatory prerequisite to procreation is it no longer fundamental to the very existence of our race? Sure it is. You can procreate until the end of the earth and not ensure the survival of the race. If you do not rear the child properly, the child dies. So here is where marriage comes in. Marriage is the ideal environment in which to raise a child because of the stable familial environment it fosters. So marriage is the ideal environment in which to raise children... something that is fundamental to our very existence. This applies to all married families... not exclusively the ones who procreate. If you adopt a child and raise it in this ideal environment, you are helping to ensure our survival as a race.
