Discussion: Kentucky: Ban Gay Marriage Because Procreation Is Good For The Economy

Discussion for article #222689

Yes. It’s true. If we make gay marriage legal then everyone will want to get gay married instead of straight married and then no one will have kids.

Face, meet palm.


So let me see if I get this argument. If we allow gay people to get married opposite sex couples will stop marrying and having children. Is this your argument?


If marriage is about procreation then we must forbid people from marrying infertile members of the opposite sex, no?


Does this also mean that older people who are no longer procreating need to get the hell out of Kentucky because they’re just worthless?

Why would any attorney put forth such a primitive and absurd argument?


Nail head,meet hammer.


I get it. No marriage for women who are past menopause. No marriage for sterile men. Let’s stop those moochers from taking advantage of Kentucky’s generosity!


So now the bigots are arguing simultaneously that gay people should be having children, and that if they just keep same-gender marriage illegal, that non-heterosexual people will suddenly become heterosexual and start having babies?

I assume that in order to encourage high birth rates, Kentucky ensures several weeks or months of maternity leave, right?
Well, at least couple planning to marry must pass a fertility test, surely?
Then, at a minimum, Kentucky must have the highest expenditure on early childhood education, certainly?
Oh, and surely Kentucky is actively promoting Latinos and South Asians, who statistically have the largest number of children per capita to settle in the state.
Kentucky Fried Logic.


I have to imagine a large portion or the majority of Kentucky births are out-of-wedlock/single mother births. Maybe with luck and love these new people will add to the economy when of age but government programs/assistance are the norm when young.

“Kentucky’s support of the only type of relationship that can naturally procreate … is not only rational, but also consistent with sound economic policy.”

I guess unwed mothers with teen pregnancies are “job creators”.


Anyone who hasn’t dropped a litter by age eighteen should be required to report to Kentucky authorities immediately.

1 Like

So should the state ban sterile or infertile persons from entering into marriage? If sterile or infertile persons were allowed to marry it could impact population growth…

So that’s your argument is it? That’s the basket you’re putting your eggs in? OK then. Prove it.

I want the state of Kentucky to propose and pass – right now – a bill to treat marriage licenses the same as, say, driver’s licenses. Have them expire automatically after, oh I don’t know – five years should be long enough. And the only way they can be renewed is if the couples can show legal proof that they have produced one or more children during that period. Otherwise all benefits and legal protections granted through marriage are lost; the license is, in other words, revoked.

Note that this will also require repealing the laws against same-sex marriage. There’s no reason why same-sex couples can’t be granted licenses too. As long as at least one member is fertile, they can have children through artificial insemination, surrogacy, etc. Just like opposite-sex couples do.

Failing to do this simply puts Kentucky’s argument back at square one: Applying it’s claimed policy differently for one class of its citizens than it does for another. Which would make the state’s claims nothing more than a sham. Which of course is precisely what it is.

1 Like

First thing you learn in law school, don’t write a brief while drunk.


The under-inclusiveness of the argument is well-covered with examples of sterile or infertile couples not being banned from marriage. Another response: There are likely already in KY. hundreds maybe even thousands of same sex couples with children – adopted, from previous marriages or through artificial insemination. Do those families not add to the economic stability and growth of the state? Why wouldn’t those families allow the state to recoup the benefits provided to them? In addition, aren’t those children entitled to have married parents? Is some kind of ephemeral economic benefit a justification for stigmatizing those families, who will contribute as much to the economic stability of the state as any heterosexual couple? Not even rational.


is there a 2 kid minimum?

1 Like

(Don’t take this as an endorsement of the state’s position.)

No, I don’t think that’s the argument. As I comprehend it, the state is conceding that there is a benefit to being married, but that there is a justification for limiting that benefit to straight people (discriminating against gays) because straights provide an offsetting economic benefit by producing children that gays don’t. Hence, the state’s assertion that gays are seeking a benefit from the state without making the necessary showing that they contribute in the way straights do.

This is, basically, crazy on a number of fronts – (1) because the state in no way conditions any marriage on the likelihood of or intention to procreate. It’s a made up, post hoc justification. (2) gay people do procreate – via adoption, surrogacy, etc., and whether or not their fertility rate is low or high is an immaterial consideration because the state (pace 1) does not condition a marriage license on any level of fertility. So this assertion is not grounded in fact or logic or evenhanded policy making.

Finally, the “economic benefits” of children are themselves up for debate, particularly since population growth can occur through means other than procreation, such as in-flow or immigration from other states. There are many places in the world with high birth rates and suboptimal economic performance (the Philippines).

The anti-SSM side made arguments like this in Massachusetts and lost, although there I think it was made in terms of marriage as a necessary protection for children that justified limiting it. This is not quite the same, but subject to a lot of the same counter arguments.

1 Like

Love this. Although I would say that there are some cases where being drunk is the only possible way that you can write the brief. This might be one of them.


This is so lame it’s even gotten me wondering if it’s intentionally so. Maybe the gov feels a political need to defend ‘traditional marriage’ in a pretty red state but also wants to somehow be on the right side of history and so has a law firm advance an argument that is sure to fail? I know this is a stretch but surely it’s no further of a stretch than thinking such an argument could prevail.

1 Like