The case Obergefell v. Hodges was argued today, and there was only really two substantial arguments that came from the Respondents (who are against marriage equality). And by substantial, I mean arguments that were mentioned explicitly, not arguments that made sense. The first related to the definition of marriage as "based on [a] biological bond" related to procreation, and the second disputed the definition of marriage as a public act of a state, subject to Article IV of the Fourteenth Amendment. The first question dealt with the first argument mostly, and the second question focused on the second argument. I am going to talk about the first argument more extensively, because it really affects something close to me personally, and also took up most of the Respondent's time.
The concept of a biological definition of marriage is bogus, and was exposed as such during oral arguments. It is discriminatory and goes against marriages between two people who cannot procreate, leaving far-reaching consequences and negative implications. It discriminates against older couples who want to marry, people who are unable to naturally reproduce, and adopted children. Follow me below the orange squiggle-thing for a more in-depth look at the Respondent's arguments.
The first question before the court was "Does the 14th amendment require a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?". The counselor for the Petitioners and the Attorney General argued that it was, and used a variety of arguments that I'm sure we are all familiar with and would agree with. It is the Respondent's claims that need scrutiny.
The lawyer for the Respondents, John Bursch, began his oral arguments attempting to refute the Petitioner's arguments by saying that they were mischaracterizing his side's position. He then began to spew nonsense about how the definition of marriage "developed to serve purposes... that arise from biology". He went on a rant about how the world would be "if we had no marriage at all", which doesn't really seem to be relevant, since no one is advocating that we get rid of marriage. He talks about how "men and women would still be getting together and creating children, but they wouldn't be attached to each other in any social institution", and talks about how "the State doesn't have any interest in [love and commitment]".
After a sidetrack on whether or not marriage equality "will harm that State interest in regulating procreation through marriage", Bursch gets back to his point that marriage equality will supposedly "delink the idea that we're binding children with their biological mom and dad". Justice Sotomayor then mentions that "marriage doesn't [bind children to their biological parents] on any level" and asks "How many married couples do fathers with the benefits or the requirements of marriage walk away from their children?". Bursch doesn't ever really address this point, but is prompted by some other questions from the Justices to move on.
He begins to describe a kind of "slippery slope" where the separation of marriage from procreation leads to "more children outside of marriage". Justice Kagan then asks if allowing same-sex marriage declares that marriage and children are unrelated, and Bursch says that it doesn't "in the abstract", basically conceding his point as irrelevant and speculative. However, he continues on this road, asserting that marriage equality "reduces the rate that opposite-sex couples stay together, bound by their children", which Justice Breyer dismisses as having no evidence to support it.
Then the argument gets to the point that resonates with me personally. He says that "we can all agree that, in general, that we want kids to stay bound to their biological mother and father whenever possible". Justice Sotomayor disagrees, saying that the children "should be bound to their parent", citing adopted children. As a person who was put up for adoption by my biological mother, and who has a sibling who was put up for adoption, I find this argument particularly compelling. My adoptive mother, my mother, was unable to have children. Does that mean that the state has no compelling reason to recognize her marriage to my adoptive father? Does that make my relationship to my brother and my parents any less valid? I do not have an extensive relationship with my biological family by choice, though I have met them and was offered that choice. Does the government really delegate my parent's commitment to me as second-class compared to a biological parent's commitment to their child? I have a serious problem with that.
The rest of the of the argument on this matter consists of repetition and emphasis that marriage is intended to link children to their biological parents. This premise is false, and amounts to little more than biological discrimination. Moreover, it doesn't even begin to justify refusing to extend the fundamental right of marriage to homosexual couples. As an adopted child, I find the concept of basing marriage exclusively on linking biological parents to biological children, without taking love and commitment into account, personally insulting and demeaning. I hope that this weak, narrow, inconsiderate argument does not sway the Supreme Court to rule against marriage equality.