Prop 8 Lawyer "Doesn't Know" How Gay Marriage "Threatens Conventional Unions"

If you've spent any time attempting to follow the super-serious worries of those who oppose gay marriage, you'd know that their major concern lies in the deleterious effects this will have on heterosexual -- or, in the parlance of America's brave beauty queen also-rans, "opposite" -- marriage. There's a process involved, and it goes like this:

STEP ONE: Gays are allowed to marry one another.
STEP TWO: Step two happens.
STEP THREE: Marriage ruined for everyone!

Naturally, it's like pulling teeth to get anyone to own up to the blank space that's currently doing all the heavy lifting in the three-step process to the widespread de-sanctifying of everyone's marriage vows. That's why the Associated Press reports this line of questioning between U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker and Proposition 8-supporting lawyer Charles Cooper -- which occurred during a hearing in which Cooper sought to have a lawsuit filed in support of gay marriage thrown out -- as "an unusual exchange."

A federal judge challenged the backers of California's voter-enacted ban on same-sex marriage Wednesday to explain how allowing gay couples to wed threatens conventional unions, a demand that prompted their lawyer to acknowledge he did not know...

The question is relevant to the assertion that Proposition 8 is constitutionally valid because it furthers the states goal of fostering "naturally procreative relationships," Walker explained.

"What is the harm to the procreation purpose you outlined of allowing same-sex couples to get married?" Walker asked.

"My answer is, I don't know. I don't know," Cooper answered.

Cooper later insisted that, "There are things we can't know," and that, "The people of California are entitled to step back and let the experiment unfold in Massachusetts and other places, to see whether our concerns about the health of marital unions have either been confirmed or perhaps they have been completely assuaged." One wonders how such experiments will compare to similar, extant studies on the wedded bliss of their heterosexual counterparts.

RELATED:
Judge refuses to dismiss gay marriage ban suit [AP]
When in doubt I always go with, "Uh, magic?" [Alex Balk]

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to [e-mail] -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Comments

[Michaelw552]

06:58 AM on 10/22/2009

Sounds like the Underpants Gnomes are at work...

Step 1: Steal Underpants.
Step 2: ?
Step 3: PROFIT!

[1nessinall]

12:25 PM on 10/19/2009

This argument about procreation is a diversion. Just another lie to keep people from being with the one they love in marriage.

Marriage the word has been hijack and used as a weapon against your brother and sister.

Religion and God have very little in common. Religion is about duality. GOD is not.

God is not a person that thinks like man!!

GOD IS LOVE!!

God in then beginning created. That is it!! God has nothing to do with the problems that man kind has brought. It is man that has to change the way we think and approach the way we live on Mother Earth.

Jesus came here to remind us that we are all one not separate. That we are created from love and that we are here to forgive and love each other as we love God. Most people look past that.

So thinking God has any hand in what happens on Mother Earth is insanity. We were given Choice and Freewill. Look around you that is the choice mankind has made.

Our choice is how you perceive Life on Mother Earth. Your freewill is how you make that choice and live with it.

This is your reality your dream.

Do you live in 1ness or continue in fear and division?

You’re Choice
1ness

[islanddreamer]

08:55 PM on 11/02/2009

Well said 1ness!

[scottyknows]

07:15 PM on 01/15/2010

What did Jesus say about marriage in Matthew 19?

[jinsei]

09:57 AM on 10/19/2009

You know, the whole "natural/unnatural" line of argument is really insulting. Basically ALL birth defects too would be unnatural according to this argument.

[John Howard]

04:28 PM on 10/19/2009

You are correct, but the way to avoid that insult is to not claim a right to try ridiculously unnecessary and irresponsible same-sex conception, it is to eschew the need to have biologically related children with someone of the same sex. You are correct that there is risk to every pregnancy, indeed there is to everything, and correct that the idea that all birth defects are "unnatural" (or did you mean "unethical"?) is very insulting to parents and their imperfect children. That's why Sarah Palin was so good to have Trig, and recognize that he is "perfect". And that's why we don't want to reduce the ethics of childbirth and conception rights to one of risk, but that is what will happen if we declare that a same-sex couple has the equal right to procreate that a married man and woman do. That's how same-sex marriage effects everyone else's marriage. We have to establish that there is a basic fundamental difference in conception rights, or else conception rights - the right to use your own genes to procreate with the person of your choice using their own genes - will be lost for everyone and replaced with a risk-assessment of our genes and pressure to fix or change them.

[Liberal Angel]

04:54 PM on 10/19/2009

ABSOLUTELY WRONG. You have imagined you have some "right" to prevent people from having families. You do NOT! We already have the right to have families, and there's nothing people who may think like you can do about it. We have our rights. You only think you have a right. Major difference.

[xenas mom]

10:23 AM on 10/20/2009

Every individual in the country has the "right" to procreate regardless of marital status. Your argument is deeply flawed.

[islanddreamer]

08:59 PM on 11/02/2009

Not only that, but it would be "unnatural" to fly in an airplane at 30,000 feet or receive a heart transplant or have sex after the child bearing years.

[CJWebber]

07:38 PM on 10/18/2009

I have been married to someone of the opposite sex for over 25 years and someone else's marriage doesn't affect my marriage. How could it?

If anything, spousal abuse, child abuse, infidelity and divorce is a blight upon traditional marriage.

[John Howard]

08:48 PM on 10/16/2009

"What is the harm to the procreation purpose you outlined of allowing same-sex couples to get married?" Walker asked.

The harm is that it equates a man and woman's right to procreate together to a same-sex couple's right to procreate together. It either says that same-sex couples have a right to attempt to procreate together, combining their genes to create shared biological offspring, or it says that a married man and woman do not have a right to combine their own genes to create biological offspring.

[MaineMike]

08:59 PM on 10/16/2009

That doesn't make any sense what-so-ever.

[John Howard]

09:50 PM on 10/16/2009

I'll try to explain better. Marriage has always meant that the couple is allowed to procreate together, with their own genes. There has never been a marriage that wasn't allowed to produce offspring of the marriage, and that is still true today - all marriages are allowed to attempt to procreate together. So, either it continues to mean the couple is allowed to attempt to procreate (and therefore we continue to allow labs to attempt same-sex conception), or we change everyone's marriage so that none of them protect the right of the couple to attempt to procreate with their own genes anymore.

The second is an obvious change to everyone's marriage - they now can be prohibited from procreating with their own genes (though it probably wouldn't actually happen for a while), and they won't be able to claim that their marriage protects their right to procreate. But even the first option, where marriage continues to protect the right to procreate because we don't prohibit attempting same-sex procreation, also affects everyone's rights, because by allowing genetic modification to create people, we disrespect the rightness of using our unmodified genes, eroding our rights through marketing and manipulated consumer "choice".

The only way to truly protect natural conception rights, as in, everyone's equal right to procreate with their own genes, is to prohibit use of modified genes, and preserve the right of every marriage to procreate, and every person to marry someone of their choice, of the other sex.

[Liberal Angel]

04:52 PM on 10/17/2009

Marriage is A LEGAL CONTRACT having NOTHING to do with procreation. If that were the case, infirtile straight couples would also be barred. This is a straw man argument that has NO bearing on why marriage equality should not be the law.

[John Howard]

07:25 PM on 10/17/2009

Infertile straight couples still have a right to try to procreate together. Same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to try. The analogy is not infertile couples (who is "infertile" today anyway? That's what IVF clinics are for) but to siblings - siblings are not infertile, they are perfectly capable of procreating together, and might even want to, but we don't let them, because it would be unethical for many reasons (genetic risk is one reason, social stability, family cohesion are others). It would also be unethical to allow same-sex procreation, so we should treat same-sex couples like sibling couples and not approve of their procreating together. All marriages approve of the couple procreating together, there has never been a marriage that was not allowed to procreate, and we shouldn't change marriage so that it no longer protects procreation rights.

[centsable]

08:14 PM on 10/16/2009

Just because 52% of california voted for Prop 8 doesn't make it legal. What if 54% voted for the return of slavery would that also be legal?

[nola87]

11:30 AM on 10/21/2009

Well that would be a violation of civil rights, and as we all know homophobia is the only discrimination that is still widly accepted.

[mercury613]

12:40 PM on 10/16/2009

Hmmmm. Hold on. The backers of Prop 8 -- in their own campaign materials -- say that "Gays and lesbians in California can already enjoy all the legal rights and benefits of marriage." So basically, they are claiming that the only difference between domestic partnerships and marriage is the word "marriage". (Even though we already know that's patently false.)

If domestic partnerships and marriage are equal in every way except in name, why then does Cooper consider heterosexual couples entering into domestic partnerships as an "adverse consequence"? After all, it's just a name, right?

Marriage equality opponents have also used the manipulative "what about the children! blah blah blah" argument against same-sex marriage. If they really do care about "the children", why are they OK with relegating same-sex couples with children to domestic partnerships when they clearly view those arrangements as deleterious to children and society? Or do they only care about *their* children, raised in *their* churches.

As usual, religious conservatives are talking out of both sides of their faces.

[John Howard]

06:30 PM on 10/16/2009

Well, same-sex couples shouldn't have one of the rights they currently have. We should prohibit conceiving children with someone of the same sex, with a federal law that prohibits all forms of creation of people except the union of a man and a woman's unmodified gametes.

So currently, because there are no laws against cloning and genetic engineering and same-sex conception using artificial gametes, same-sex couples do enjoy equal rights (and, I agree with the court, therefore should be allowed to marry). But by saying that a same-sex couple has equal marriage rights to a married man and woman, we ARE affecting that man and woman's marriage, because we are saying that their procreation rights are not only dubious and endanger of being banned and subject to safety and risk tests, we are also equating the right to use our natural unmodified gametes with modified or substitute gametes. We are saying that procreation rights are fulfilled by use of modified gametes.

That's even if we don't pass an egg and sperm law. But if we do pass an egg and sperm law, even a moratorium, or if we just allow labs to turn down same-sex couples who want to try experimental techniques before the lab says they are safe, then continuing to allow same-sex marriage would be stripping procreation rights from all marriages, it would be saying that a man and a woman can be prohibited from procreating together also.

[mercury613]

06:48 PM on 10/16/2009

Please. You've posted this alarmist drivel before, and it has been debunked here by scientists who work in the field of genetics.

The same-sex couples I'm speaking of have adopted children, had them with surrogates, or have them from previous marriages, so your comment doesn't even apply.

Nice thinly-veiled attempt to promote the corporation you work for, though.

[pleurothallis1]

11:03 AM on 10/17/2009

DUDE!!!! "Conceiving children with someone of the same sex" is patently biologically impossible. Your arguments do little to disguise your bias. Why not just own that and state it, instead of trying to sound altruistic and such?

[CoolerHeads]

12:36 AM on 11/02/2009

Excellent point. I tried to make it below. If domestic partnerships are some great detriment to society, then they do not even rise to the level of "separate but equal." What's more, if gay marriage does somehow increase the occurrence of domestic partnerships amongst straight couples (dubious claim to be sure) the requirement of equal rights for same sex couples will trump that. You can't deny equal rights to one class just because it will be detrimental to another. Ending slavery really messed up a lot of poor white farmers.

[sansainte]

11:09 AM on 10/16/2009

Something that really bothers me in this entire debate. We all know that the objection to Gay Marriage is based on flawed religious beleifs. That's right....flawed.. To the best of my knowledge these busy body zealots claim to be Christians..thus followers of Jesus Christ. Christ never said THOU ART GAY THOU SHALT NOT MARRY!! as far as I know. As far as I'm concerned if these Pseudo Christians are against Gay Marriage..don't marry a Gay person..just as I believe that if they are Anti Aborstion (because they sure aren't Pro Life)...don't have an abortion. Because they are citizens of this great country they are free to practice their beliefs.My problem with them is that they are not free to ram their belifes onto me or the rest of the nation. Don't like it..Don't do it..But leave the rest of us alone. And no, I don't think God will get me for saying this. God is too busy trying to right the wrongs of the world that many of these zealots are in favor of...You all know those beliefs too..War, Death, etc..

[mercury613]

10:46 AM on 10/16/2009

The rest of the AP story is even better:

“Walker pressed on, asking again for specific "adverse consequences" that could follow expanding marriage to include same-sex couples. Cooper cited a study from the Netherlands, where gay marriage is legal, showing that straight couples were increasingly opting to become domestic partners instead of getting married.

"Has that been harmful to children in the Netherlands? What is the adverse effect?" Walker asked.

Cooper said he did not have the facts at hand.

"But it is not self-evident that there is no chance of any harm, and the people of California are entitled not to take the risk," he said.

"Since when do Constitutional rights rest on the proof of no harm?" Walker parried, adding the First Amendment right to free speech protects activities that many find offensive, "but we tolerate those in a free society."

-------------------------------

I love this judge!

[pleurothallis1]

11:05 AM on 10/17/2009

So straight dutch folks opting for domestic parnership can be directly correlated with same sex marriage? Hmmmmm..........what a lousy argument he makes......

[CoolerHeads]

12:30 AM on 11/02/2009

You know what's interesting about his argument is that it suggests that "domestic partnerships" or "civil unions" are somehow WORSE than "traditional marriage." Hasn't that been one of the many arguments to deny equal rights to gays? That they should accept separate but equal status of civil unions? Now we see that no, in fact, domestic partnerships are considered by the Right to be less than marriage, and, in fact, a great detriment to society. By this argument, you must admit that you are attempting to deny same sex couples their equal right. And as an equal right, even if it somehow affects the straight marriages, it should not be denied. You see, freeing the slaves was terrible for plenty of poor white farmers. it did them great economic harm. Didn't make slavery any more just.

[Mike Kilpatrick]

10:35 AM on 10/16/2009

Hey folks we all know that married men are just a mere suggestion or Judy Garland song away from taking it up the pooper.

[SimJack]

10:10 AM on 10/16/2009

The divorce rate in America for first marriage, vs second or third marriage
50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce, according to Jennifer Baker of the Forest Institute of Professional Psychology in Springfield, Missouri.”

http://www.divorcerate.org/

And these stats do not reflect dysfunctional marriages that aren't terminated. Looks to me like the notion hetero marriage isn't all that sanctified to begin with. Are the opponents of gay marriage actually saying these percentages will increase if gay marriage is legalized? Who makes up this crap and how do we eliminate delusional thinking/beliefs in this country?

[zombie fairy]

10:37 AM on 10/16/2009

The only way to eliminate it is by not turning that delusional thinking/ belief into the law of the land.

[DannyEV]

11:47 AM on 10/22/2009

too late.

[armadillo]

09:15 AM on 10/16/2009

The only thing threatening about the two gay guys that live next door is I can't spend enough money on my yard to keep up with them.

I want them gone. I want them to leave before I spend another $1,000 on more plants that I will have to water and keep trimmed. They are not threatening my marriage but they are killing my bank account.

[rf dude]

10:18 AM on 10/16/2009

Fabulous can be ex-PEN-sive...

[DannyEV]

11:50 AM on 10/22/2009

reminds me of something Al Franken used to say on his radio show: "What's this 'gay agenda' conservatives keep talking about? Giving everybody a great haircut and a well- decorated apartment?"

[abbeyroad]

12:37 AM on 11/09/2009

HAHAHAHAHA !!!!!!!

I've missed his show every day since he signed off for good.
(i especially miss "A Piece Of My Mind" by Enid Davenport).

[FHTB]

05:27 AM on 10/16/2009

One wonders how such experiments will compare to similar, extant studies on the wedded bliss of their heterosexual counterparts.

Jason, thanks for this...on a daily basis we see in the tabloids where heterosexual marriage vows get trashed...in the halls of Congress, we see countless examples of those who hate the idea of gays marrying, yet those same individuals haven't a clue about monogamy or faithfulness.

[NWBrunette]

02:51 AM on 10/16/2009

Man, I just love the power of simple straightforward questions. Awesome judge!

[James Fitzpatrick]

02:43 AM on 10/16/2009

Re: Cooper later insisted that, "There are things we can't know," and that, "The people of California are entitled to step back and let the experiment unfold in Massachusetts and other places, to see whether our concerns about the health of marital unions have either been confirmed or perhaps they have been completely assuaged."

-- We have already seen how 'the experiment' has unfolded in Massachusetts. In the six years since same-sex marriage has become legal there, the divorce rate in the state remains the lowest of any state in the country, and in fact has reduced the rate to about what the national divorce rate was in 1940.