This Friday, the Kansas Federal Courthouse will be the scene of a decision with regards to gay marriage in Kansas. Those who oppose the likely ruling, however, are already out in force.
https://www.scribd.com/...
In the brief, Phillip Unruh argues that should gay marriage be allowed to occur, he and his wife will be the victims of theft. Why, do you say? Because the critical redefinition of marriage to allow those who can't have children causes them immediate harm by redefining what it is they 'own', and by that ownership, I of course mean a marriage license. Let's look into their brief just a bit.
First, Unruh begins to argue by setting the terms for his definitions:
"4. The Same sex relationship Plaintiffs have differs fundamentally from marriage because in that relationship it is impossible to produce a child from sexual intercourse with one another. Of the two kinds of relationships marriage is the only one that provides both a mother and a father for child rearing."
In effect, Unruh is arguing that relationships in which the production of a child through intercourse are not, and cannot be seen as marriage. He continues.
"6. Principals of equality regarding the marriage relationship and the same sex relationship do not apply as the two relationships differ as apples and oranges"
While I rarely see the use of "Apples and Oranges" in a legal brief, I find it an interesting comparison for Mr. Unruh to take, as both Apples & Oranges are in fact fruits, despite outer appearances share a great number of similarities. If the assumption is that outside assessment matters, then a relationship would be different if, say, a short woman married a tall man. Very different, but still amongst the same group.
"11. If the plaintiffs are successful in their causes of action the meaning of marriage wil be so fundamentally and profoundly changed that the Unruh's will experience a taking of their property rights in marriage without due process law."
"12. The Unruhs claim a property right in marriage that is subject of this action and is so situated that disposing of this action may as a practical matter impair or impede Unruh's ability to protect their interest in the institution of marriage that forms the substance of their relationship unless the Unruhs are permitted to represent that interest."
That's right. Allowing people to marry who cannot procreate in effect causes this married couple harm that amounts to theft - because it is societal theft that these non-procreators take on a societal contract.
A minor rebuttal:
The argument put forward in this legal brief is pretty simple: married couples wil face immediate harm if we allow people who can't procreate to get married. This, to me, is a despicable argument. It isn't just about gay or straight, it is an argument of human decency.
There are a great number of people, who, for many reasons, know that they cannot or will not have children. They go into a marriage knowing that they cannot have children. A friend of mine from years ago suffered a fight with ovarian cancer young. She will never have children. Would that make any marriage she partakes in a theft? The happiest married couple I know were married in their early 60s. Their spouses had been deceased for years, and they found each other in a retirement community. They've been together for almost 20 years since then, and everytime I see them I feel better. They knew getting married there would be no children in their marriage.
The argument put forward by the Unruhs in effect renders women over a certain age 'unmarriable' or that marriage to them breaks the social contract. Outside of being an open declaration of anti-gay standards, it also stands as an a blatant slap at all women who seek to marry who either can't, or don't want children. I'm sorry, but if you are in either of those groups your marriage may also constitute a theft of their right to have marriages be about procreation.
The court case takes place this Friday, and a judgement is likely to come in favor of the plaintiffs. It may be hard news to take for the Unruhs, who will find that their marriage no longer matches the requirement.
However, Phillip may also want to realize as a much older man in a long term marriage - which I assume is happy and great - they are unlikely to produce any more children, and as a result, their continued taking of social benefits may also be theft.
The Unruhs, however, want you to know for sure that they aren't bigots.
"b) The extension of marriage to same sex relationships inflects profound harm on the Unruhs. For the courts to say that from this day forward marriage in Kansas must be extended to a same sex couple is and for ever will be deeply disturbing to the Unruhs and undoubtedly to those that cared enough to pass an amendment to protect it, a departure from the joy and celebration normally associated with the word marriage. Disturbed, no because of bigotry, but out of solemn respect for what marriage is, what it has meant to them and to society in general."
So, if it helps you feel any better, they've decided that you are all terrible and shouldn't have equal rights, but you know.. they don't do it out of bigotry. They do it only because what you want to do is disturbing. But again, that isn't a kind of bigotry they recognize as bigotry.
Women, either your breeding machines or you can't stay married. Reading this legal document, I kept thinking of this: