On Wednesday, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument in cases challenging the constitutionality of four different state law banning same-sex marriage, including Michigan. And at least one of the judges on the panel was not buying the “but straight families are great” argument.
Tennessee’s state attorney told the court that “including opposite-sex couples,” in marriage laws, “furthers the state’s interest, because it’s opposite-sex couples who are having the children, that we’re concerned about.”…
“And they’re going to go on having those children, they’re going to go on getting married, they’re going to go on having children. It’s happening in 21 states where same-sex marriages are allowed. I’m sorry, I’m struggling too. I just don’t quite get the picture. There’s nothing about this that has stopped any heterosexual couple from getting married,” the judge stormed, apparently pounding papers on the bench as she spoke. “Discouraged them from getting married. Kept them from procreating — deliberately or accidentally. What are we dealing with here?”
“If you didn’t have in Tennessee,” the judge continued, “a law or a constitutional amendment outlawing, forbidding same-sex marriages, people would still get married, they would still procreate — deliberately or accidentally. Life would go on just the way it has gone on. What is the point?”
This has been the glaring, gaping hole in this argument from the start. I’ve ridiculed this argument in the past by putting it into a syllogism:
P: Marriage is great and families are important for raising children.
C: Therefore, gay marriage is bad.
There’s literally no second premise here. There’s no argument that is even remotely coherent that can link the original premise to the conclusion. The conclusion has no relationship at all to the first premise. Nice to see a judge recognizing that fact.