The state of Kentucky is now defending its right to prohibit same-sex marriage with an unconventional stance: Procreation, the purview of heterosexual couples, is good for the economy, so the state has an obligation to ban gay marriage.
Lawyers for the state filed a brief last week after a federal judge ruled it must recognize gay marriages from other states. The lawyers argued opposite-sex married couples recoup the state for the tax benefits they recieve by procreating and thereby improving the state’s economy. Same-sex couples, they argued, do not.
“Same-sex couples are materially different from traditional man-woman couples. Only man-woman couples can naturally procreate,” the lawyers wrote. “Fostering procreation serves a legitimate economic interest that is rationally related to the traditional man-woman marriage model.
Yes. Breed, ladies! Breed for the state! That’s a compelling argument.
What the fuck is Kentucky on about here? Kentucky must grow its own workers? Because everybody born in Kentucky stays there and contributes? Because that’s the only way you grow your economy? I don’t know how on earth … I mean, whatever, it’s obviously a ruse to cover their bigotry, but I’ve had more logical arguments with Claire and she can’t talk.
7 thoughts on “Breed for the Reich!”
When they also move to ban divorce, I’ll give their procreation argument some consideration. Also, when when they move to ban marriage involving women above the age of – let’s say – 50 years old.
Until then, not so much.
That’s what they got? Procreation (“naturally” of course)? Is the state of Kentucky worried that our species isn’t breeding enough to guarantee the next generation? Because that whole “be fruitful and multiply” edict seems to have reached a natural stopping point, seeing as how we’re outstripping the planet’s capacity to support our wasteful habits.
And wasn’t it just last week that Princess Dumbass was scolding liberals for her warped perception that liberals just reduced human beings to choices? Sounds like that’s the entire legal foundation for Kentucky’s argument: The State values its citizens only insofar as they procreate. If that’s not commodifying persons, I don’t know what is.
Conservatives is weird.
Uh, don’t non-married people have sex and get kids too? And if I accept KY’s argument, then shouldn’t we be encouraging folks to have kids as soon as procreation is biologically possible?
But seriously, aren’t there problems with looming overpopulation? And aren’t there kids in foster care, waiting on parents, which gays could adopt? And aren’t there statistics on how much it takes to raise and educate a kid and how much of a drag that is on the parents’ retirement fund?
Conservatives have always been about kirke, kuche und kinder.
Oh, the slogans:
“KY: it’s not just for buttsecks any more”
Not to mention all the old people who might want to get married. Or maybe they could make divorce mandatory after menopause, so that the hubby’s sperm doesn’t go to waste in an expired uterus.
Hell, it’s Kentucky. They’ll probably be checking the bride’s teeth next.
So if they can’t get married all those gay couples are going to turn hetero and start pumping out babies?
The stupid, it BURNS.
Comments are closed.