How the ‘Responsible Procreation’ Argument Sugarcoats Anti-Gay Prejudice
Understanding The “Responsible Procreation” Argument
When conservatives claim that banning same-sex marriage promotes “responsible procreation,” it can actually mean several different things, depending on the context. Here are a few examples.
Sometimes, the line simply reinforces the assumption that different-sex couples make superior parents to same-sex couples, thus it would be “responsible” to limit family recognition to such couples. This argument was used by House Republicans to pass and then defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
Another permutation suggests that marriage law is designed to manipulate opposite-sex couples by incentivizing them to marry should they get pregnant — intentionally or accidentally — so that the state does is not burdened with raising the child. As Utah is arguing to defend its ban on marriage equality, only different-sex couples can procreate, so only they need marriage to ensure the state does not have to care for their children. Michigan has been more explicit about this intention, claiming in its defense that it’s important to “regulate sexual relationships between men and women so that the unique procreative capacity of such relationships benefits rather than harms society.” This is essentially the variation put forth in the Nevada and Hawaii cases: if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, then different-sex couples will have more children out of wedlock.
More: How the ‘Responsible Procreation’ Argument Sugarcoats Anti-Gay Prejudice