Yesterday, the US Supreme Court took up the issue of gay marriage in a case concerning California's Proposition 8. While a lot of legal arguments were tossed around, I want to focus on one.
Charles Cooper, legal counsel for four Californians seeking to uphold the results of Proposition 8, barring gay marriage in the state, told the court on Tuesday that the inability of same-sex couples to have children together meant that to allow them to wed would change the historic definition of marriage.
Time and time again, this has been one of the central arguments by those who oppose gay marriage. Though I do not happen to be gay, this argument, if upheld, would mean that people like me would be barred from getting married as well.
I was born with Klinefelter's Syndrome. My body does not produce sperm and there is no operation or therapy that will change this fact. According to Cooper's argument, since I am unable to procreate -- I certainly can and have had sex, I just can't produce babies -- my marriage to Della HAS changed "the historic definition of marriage."
But, of course, my marriage has done no such thing! The institution of marriage is alive and well. So, if Della and I can be married without procreation, why can't Steve and John or Cindy and Sara?