Ware Farms

Speaking truth to prejudice

Saturday, June 11, 2005


Procreation is not the only Reason for Marriage

The relationship between procreation and marriage seems to be a rather weak point to make as an anti-SSM argument.

This relationship has been brought up in several of the state arguments attempting to justify laws that discriminate against gays and lesbians and has been summarily dismissed.

Some states, in fact, allow first cousin marriages only if the couple can prove through age or other evidence that they cannot procreate. On the other side, I'm aware of no state marriage law that mentions the ability to procreate in any way or fashion.

Any suggestion that we now add such a radical provision would meet with little public support if any. Think of how insulting it would be to all those couples we allow to marry now, whose inability to procreate is so obvious. We consider all these marriages valuable, not just those that may produce children.

The courts position, simply stated is: procreation is not a requirement for marriage any more than marriage is a requirement for procreation. Considering all those who now marry where procreation is not possible, it has to remain this way.

Yet procreation is only the first step in an 18 plus year process of raising a child. While we may fully support the ideal of having a child raised by his or her two married biological parents, we cannot abandon any children simply because they do not find themselves in this ideal situation. We support adopted children and their parents. We support step children and encourage step parents to adopt their spouse's children, the idea being that having two legally responsible parents is better than having just one.

For this same "two parents are better than one" reason and others, the American Academy of Pediatrics supports second parent adoption for gay and lesbian couples as related in their news release AAP supports second-parent adoptions by homosexuals. This, they sincerely believe, is in the best interest of the children they serve.

For these same valid reasons, it would be in the best interest of the 300,000 or so children who are being raised by these lesbian and gay couples to be provided with all the same rights, privileges and community support that the children of heterosexual couples now have by allowing their parents to marry.

We should never let the "ideal" prevent us from doing what is best to support all the children in our communities.

Also posted at: Family Scholar's blog Comment #49


At 6/12/2005 12:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


I just discovered your blog and I have read everything in your archives.

I look forward to every new post because I find your ppoint of view refreshing and, unfortunately, rare.

You seem to be one of the rare Christians who actually knows what Jesus would expect you do to.

At 6/12/2005 7:08 PM, Blogger Bill Ware said...

Thanks, Your comment will inspire me as I make future posts. Is there any area where you have a particular interest?

At 6/13/2005 8:30 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have an idea for a column that I would write myself if I had the tools to research it.

You mention that some states have laws that allow first cousin marriages if the parties can show they will not procreate.

I happen to know that some state allow various forms of "cousin marriages" regardless. Some states forbid cousin marriages completely.

States vary considerably in their marriage laws.


No matter what the law is in any given state. Every single marriage is, to the best of my knowlege. treated equally under FEDERAL law.

And, if I were to marry my cousin in a state where it is legal, and then move to a state where such marriage is not legal, to my knowlege, the FEDERAL government will not disallow my joint 1040 or forbid me my Social Security benifits.

I live in Massachusetts when SSM is legal.

Even if one believes that it is OK under Federalism, for one state to refuse to recognize the validity of another state's marriage laws, there is no way that you can convince me that the Federal government can refuse.

It seems to me that the Federal government already condones many "illegal" marriages.

They cannot and should not discriminate which legal marriages they choose to recognize.


Post a Comment

<< Home