Join The Times' book club. This month's selection: "Cadillac Desert"
Opinion Opinion L.A.

Texas' ludicrous legal procreation argument against gay marriage

States can't interfere with whether couples, married or not, choose to have children
Don't mess with Texas? How about Texas don't mess with same-sex couples' desire to wed and have children?

Does the attorney general of Texas have so little of worth to say against same-sex marriage that he's reduced to the nonsensical argument that the state can ban it because there's a legitimate public interest in encouraging procreation?

Well, yes, probably he doesn't have anything of worth to say. Opponents of same-sex marriage have clearly had a tough time. It's frustrating when they can't come up with a single rational argument to present to a judge. They already were unable in court to identify a way in which gay marriage harms traditional heterosexual marriage, though they cling to that claim anyway. The good-parenting argument collapses on its own illogic -- even if there were clear proof that children fare best in a traditional mommy-daddy household, and there isn't. We don't prohibit others from marrying based on whether they would make good parents, even though we have pretty good evidence that domestic abusers and alcoholics have less-than-ideal parenting skills.

But this argument by Texas Atty. Gen. Greg Abbott is so specious on so many levels, I can only imagine he privately cringed with embarrassment when he used it in an actual court case.

To start with, as Abbott surely knows, marriage doesn't necessarily have much to do with procreation. Gay and lesbian couples are going to have or adopt children if they want them, and won't if they don't, whether or not they are married. If anything, one could argue that the ability to wed might have a slight positive impact on procreation because these couples would foresee their families having the same social status as all other families.

Unmarried straight people have children. And many heterosexual couples don't. Does Abbott want to ban postmenopausal women from marrying? Men who can't produce viable sperm?  If the state indeed has a valid legal interest in procreation -- though I'd suggest it keep its nose out of people's family business -- then doesn't it have an obligation to provide low-cost child care so that women can afford to go to work so that they could afford to have more children?

Though if the state feels it needs to keep growing its population, there's a quick way it could probably do that -- by offering to provide a welcoming home for the children fleeing other countries who have shown up in such large numbers along its border.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion

Copyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
  • Putting a price tag on the risk posed by ride-sharing drivers

    Putting a price tag on the risk posed by ride-sharing drivers

    Simply turning on a smartphone ride-sharing application, such as Uber or Lyft, makes a driver about 8% riskier on average.

  • A chance to clarify 'one person, one vote'

    A chance to clarify 'one person, one vote'

    The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear a case that could re-do how political districts are drawn. Currently, districts in Texas are supposed to be roughly equal in total population, but a group there wants only citizens who can vote to be considered. The following piece on the case by...

  • Iran's trial of Washington Post writer: Secrecy, not justice

    Iran's trial of Washington Post writer: Secrecy, not justice

    A Revolutionary Court judge in Tehran held a two-hour hearing Tuesday in the espionage trial of Washington Post correspondent Jason Rezaian, who was born and raised in the Bay Area and holds dual U.S. and Iranian citizenship. Because the court proceedings are secret and the indictment remains under...

  • In 2016's presidential race, the winner will be ...

    In 2016's presidential race, the winner will be ...

    We treat political campaigns like slow-moving athletic competitions and like to pretend that every last gaffe could determine the next president of the United States. But most of us also know, at some level, that forces beyond strategy and personality decide national elections.

  • Bernie Sanders: Why the guy who won't win matters

    Bernie Sanders: Why the guy who won't win matters

    Sen. Bernie Sanders, the self-described socialist who kicked off his presidential campaign on Tuesday with a characteristically fiery speech, isn't going to win the 2016 Democratic nomination unless lightning strikes. To be really effective, in any case, the lightning would have to strike Hillary...

  • Charter-Time Warner Cable deal: We'll get the Dodgers, but what else?

    Charter-Time Warner Cable deal: We'll get the Dodgers, but what else?

    The real winner of the failed Comcast-Time Warner Cable deal became abundantly clear Tuesday: It was Time Warner Cable. Federal regulators opposed Comcast's $45-billion acquisition on the grounds that combining the first- and second-largest cable TV operators would threaten competition in the emerging...