Same-sex marriage opponents have said, over and over, that denying equal marriage rights to same-sex couples is justified because same-sex couples cannot naturally concieve children together. Legal marriage is based, according to this argument, on heterosexual fertility.<\/p>\n
But here’s a question. According to Stephen Nock – a scholar often cited as an expert by SSM opponents – “the traditional fault-based grounds” for ending marriage in the United States include “felony life-or-death convictions, physical or sexual abuse of a child or of the spouse, adultery, and abandonment.” (See “Marriage Law: Obsolete or Cutting Edge?” in Michigan Journal of Gender & Law<\/i>, 10 Mich. J. Gender & L. 21, 2003).<\/p>\n
If fertility is the core of legal marriage in the US, then why was infertility not a traditional fault-based ground for divorce?<\/p>\n
Abuse was – so clearly, treating each other decently, without violence, is a core legal requirement of marriage in the USA.<\/p>\n
Adultry was – so clearly, fidelity is a core legal requirement of marriage in the USA.<\/p>\n
But ability to bear children was not a traditional ground for fault-based divorce.<\/p>\n
How on earth did the legislature and the courts overlook that, since – according to SSM opponants – bearing children is virtually the only legal justification for marriage?<\/p>\n
(P.S. Yes, I know I posted this general line of thought before – but I didn’t get an answer then, plus I didn’t have the Stephen Nock reference then, so what the heck.).<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Same-sex marriage opponents have said, over and over, that denying equal marriage rights to same-sex couples is justified because same-sex couples cannot naturally concieve children together. Legal marriage is based, according to this argument, on heterosexual fertility. But here’s a … Continue reading