I like a comment that was made over on WorkingForChange in the wake of the Washington Supreme Court ruling on same-gender marriage:
This is the heart of the opinion written by Justice Barbara Madsen: “Limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children’s biological parents.” In short, the state’s wedding bells are ringing for procreators.
Well if that’s true, isn’t it time for the legislatures in Washington and in New York, which issued a similar ruling against same-sex marriage this summer, to follow their own logic? If marriage is for procreation, shouldn’t they refuse to wed anyone past menopause? Shouldn’t they withhold a license, let alone blessings and benefits, from anyone who is infertile? As for those who choose to be childless? Nothing borrowed or blue for them. Indeed the state could offer young couples licenses with sunset clauses. After five years they have to put up (kids) or split up.
ISTR that in some religions/denominations, the procreation test is one that must be passed in order for the religious authority to perform/acknowledge the marriage. The five years to put up (put out?) or split up measure is over and above anything I’ve heard being done in practice, but.
I’ll repeat my opinion on same-gender marriage for the umpteenth time: Marriage is a religious sacrament. God can join together whomever He wants. I realize that there are differing opinions on the potential eligibility requirements for marriage in God’s mind, and that’s something that is unlikely to be resolved in this world.
I think that civil government needs to stay out of the question of who can or can’t get married, in much the same way as the government’s having no place in determining who can/can’t be baptized, ordained, etc.
Having said that, there are some advantages to having civil recognitions of family, in many of its various configurations. Acknowledging a family as a discrete economic entity, and prepackaging a standardized set of privileges and responsibilities for family members is the sort of thing that is certainly within the government’s domain. However, setting restrictions on the make-up of a consensually-formed family is beyond what should be the scope of government interest or authority.