If Paul Clement is going to make arguments that are this idiotic in front of the Supreme Court as he defends DOMA on behalf of House Republicans, I believe he deserves a raise.
Oh wait, they already gave him a raise three times!
WASHINGTON — Marriage should be limited to unions of a man and a woman because they alone can “produce unplanned and unintended offspring,” opponents of gay marriage have told the Supreme Court.
By contrast, when same-sex couples decide to have children, “substantial advance planning is required,” said Paul D. Clement, a lawyer for House Republicans.
This unusual defense of traditional marriage was set out last week in a pair of opening legal briefs in the two gay marriage cases to be decided by the Supreme Court this spring. […]
The traditional marriage laws “reflect a unique social difficulty with opposite-sex couples that is not present with same-sex couples — namely, the undeniable and distinct tendency of opposite-sex relationships to produce unplanned and unintended pregnancies,” wrote Clement, a solicitor general under President George W. Bush. “Unintended children produced by opposite-sex relationships and raised out-of-wedlock would pose a burden on society.”
This is such a poor argument it’s hard to believe this report is accurate.
If it’s accurate, it means Paul Clement is arguing, with all seriousness, that gay couples should not be legitimized because the laws that govern marriage should be reserved for those who can produce offspring on their own.
Why? Because according to him, current law is intended to manage the irresponsible procreation of men and women. Not the responsible procreation of same-sex couples.
If you follow that line of logic far enough, it would mean we would have no need for marriage laws at all if all parent couples were responsible. After all, if marriage law was only established to manage those who are irresponsible, why would we need it?
I have serious doubts that average people, the nation’s religious institutions, or more importantly — the Supreme Court — will agree with that.
I’ve assumed for a long time now that the Supreme Court would strike down DOMA, but I also assumed the arguments being made in favor upholding it would be better than this. This is a joke.
Clement’s argument is more of a case for gay marriage.