Skip to main content

View Diary: Inexpert thoughts on today's Supreme Court arguments (72 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Here's an inexpert thought... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nowhere Man

    I noticed during the first day's hearings that, under questioning by Kagan about why marriage should be legal for straight couples over 55, he said that the men in the marriage were still fertile and could father children outside the marriage, and this was an issue that existing marriage law was set up to deal with in many ways.

    Did it never occur to either of them that gay men can and do often father children out of wedlock?  What's the difference between that and Strom Thurmond knocking up the housemaid? (other than that whole racist misogyny thing.)  If the "institution" of marriage (god, what a phrase) provide legal protections for and against children born out of wedlock for fertile straight married couples, why wouldn't it do the same for children born out of wedlock to gay married couples?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (145)
  • Community (68)
  • Elections (34)
  • Media (33)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (31)
  • Environment (30)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Law (28)
  • Culture (27)
  • Civil Rights (26)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Hillary Clinton (24)
  • Science (23)
  • Climate Change (23)
  • Republicans (23)
  • Labor (21)
  • Economy (19)
  • Marriage Equality (19)
  • Jeb Bush (18)
  • Josh Duggar (18)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site