Listening to the reporting on the SCOTUS arguments regarding mariage equality, I believe, gives us a glimpse into the true social conservative. Not the tailored look that Romney tried to portray, or the lunatic facade meant to appeal to the lunatic fringe, but the well thought out statements that characterize a true social conservative. To be more specific, the statements that result from the desperation of a social conservatives that realizes all is lost, so why not go for the Hail Mary.
My first bit of amazement came when the conservatives were arguing that marriage is supposed to for procreation, and because same sex couple can't procreate, they can't marry. This is an old argument, and really makes no sense because we do not check for fertility, or encourage couples with no children to divorce and find other partners. What surprised me, however, was the response to the question of why do allow older couples to marry when they clearly are not going to procreate.
In light of that, asked Kagan, would it be constitutional to bar marriage licenses for those over 55? For several minutes, Cooper tried to dodge the question, contending that one partner in such a marriage is likely to remain fertile.How can we take this? I think there is only one way, and it says quite a bit about the true social conservative. That marriage is between one man and one women, and any children that result must be taken care of within the marriage, but there is no expectation of fidelity. This may be the real reason why conservatives do not think that marriage equality is needed. Because they do not believe in the sanctity of the relationship. If you are gay, you still have the responsibility to marry and procreate, but that does not mean you can't go out and date. In other words, no one says your spouse has to be your lover, just your contractual mate. In fact, under this logic, in the case where an old infertile man marries a young woman, the women is free, nay required, to take other lovers and become impregnated.
The second interesting point is that of debate.
The question the court has to answer, he said, "is whether the Constitution puts a stop to that ongoing democratic debate and answers this question for all 50 states."This is curious comment because SCOTUS decision clearly have no ability to stop debate. The court has said that abortions are legal up to a certain time, yet that has not stopped the debate on whether murdering a women is preferable to murdering a fetus. The supreme court has said that murdering a human in retaliation for certain crimes is constitutional, but that has not stopped the debate on the morality and efficacy of such state sanctioned murder. The court has said that it is constitutional to provide a fund a system in which everyone has access to health care, but that has not stopped the debate on this issue.
So what does this tell us? It tells us that the conservatives are pretty sure they are in the wrong here. They realize that marriage equality has nothing to do with one man and one women, but everything to do with continuing the pattern of bigotry that characterizes the conservative, in particular the religious conservative. It is important to have groups that are not allowed into the club, because otherwise the club will not be exclusive. If there was a high ground to allowing a person to get married multiple time, but not to allow same sex marriages, this court case would not be so critical. But unlike the Dred Scott v Sandford, in which it was upheld that a person descended from Africans could not be a citizen of the US, a ruling for marriage equality is not likely be overturned in time.