“At one point, Cooper argued that procreation was a vital state interest, and that same-sex couples don’t address it, the Washington Post reports.”
Of all the good arguments arguments against gay marriage, Cooper took up the worst which is that same sex couple should not be able to marry because they cannot procreate.
Older couples cannot procreate, infertile couples cannot procreate and prisoners who are permitted to marry cannot procreate.
Bad argument and one that was easily shot down.
On the contrary, it's a good argument. People claim that they want marriage 'equality', but a homosexual relationship is not the equal of a heterosexual relationship because one of them produces children, one of them does not. I don't have to show that heterosexual unions ALWAYS produce children, I just have to show that homosexual unions NEVER produce children. And that's just simple biology. Game. Set. Match.
As far as parsing heterosexual marriage based on procreation, do you really want to try to go down that road? Do you really want the courts to go down that road? And why should we be going down that road in the first place? Are you saying that the motivation for parsing marriage is the fact that homosexuals cannot have children? It that suppose to be some kind of compelling argument? I don't think so.
That is the narrower tack of that argument. The far better one is that there is a “compelling state interest in family and procreation which is served by the traditional definition of marriage and undermined by the expansion.”
Allowing oneself to get blown out of the water re solely procreation is poor lawyering. The argument was a softball served up to a softball playing justice : )
In NO case, zero zip none, will two queers produce a child!
Throughout time a natural marriage has always been man and woman.