Why? Because he is arguing that continued reproduction is the interest of the State.
The moment that you allow this argument to pass muster, it opens the door to allowing the State to regulate who marries beyond just heterosexuals versus non-heterosexuals.
Try this scenario on for size:
Suppose that an individual state or the entire country finds itself in a situation where the overall birthrate is low - be it that this situation arises from famine, disease, or war.
What is stopping the individual state or the country from then passing a law stating that only heterosexuals from age 18-35 can marry? Or, they pass a law that both parties in the marriage have to submit to fertility testing prior to marriage, and that if no children are produced within five years of the union, the marriage is declared invalid? Or, worse, what if the state/country determines through extensive research that one position during intercourse is practically guaranteed to result in a pregnancy versus any others and outlaws any other position?
Think that these scenarios are crazy? That's what one could say about:
- Thinking that mental illness is caused by evil spirits and the best way to resolve it was by drilling a hole in the sufferer's head.
- Rounding people up and systematically exterminating them for their religion, sexual orientation, mental capacity or illness, or just their skin and eye color (also know as the Holocaust).
- Holding a public, congressional hearing about whether or not a politician had an affair while in office (as if some of those individuals leading the hearing have not done the exact same thing, Mr. Gingrich).
It's hard for me to believe that anyone who favors limited government isn't now thinking, "Stay out of my right to marry," along with their standard "Stay out of my wallet" response to new taxes.
Penn
No comments:
Post a Comment