Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

Here is a New York Times story about homosexual "marriage." I don't think supporters and opponents of homosexual "marriage" differ about the facts. They differ about the purpose of marriage. For those who think that marriage is about affirming friendship, it will seem unjust to limit marriage to heterosexual couples. But these people have a problem, for their reasoning also supports polygamy. For those of us who think that marriage is about procreation (i.e., about binding a man and a woman for the sake of their children), there is a relevant difference between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples, for only the former can produce offspring. It does no good to point out that not all heterosexual married couples procreate, or that some homosexual couples have children in the household. For both moral and practical reasons, the law cannot inquire into the details of family life to determine who is fertile and who is not, or who intends to procreate and who does not. The rule that limits marriage to heterosexual couples is analogous to the drinking age, as I have pointed out many times in this blog. Imagine arguing that everyone should be allowed to drink alcohol, on the ground that drawing a line will prohibit some mature people from drinking.