Based on the first day, we can see the trends.
1) THe defendants will focus on the role of marriage in the procreation of children (theChildren Question). It seems to me this can be challenged in several ways, principally:
- We do not restrict marriage to fertile people, and nor do we require married people to reproduce. Therefore, marriage is uncoupled from procreation.
- GLBT families are raising children, often their own biological children from former relationships, or from IVF, or adopted and fostered children. Therefore the status of marriage protects OUR kids too. or are they not worth protecting?
- What children are taught in schools is the reality around them. There are already GLBT parents with kids in schools, just like there are single parents, divorced parents, or inter-racial parents. Whether or not we are married doesn't change the fact we are already present and children are ALREADY taught that.
- Parents must already deal with the challenge of families and relationships they may religiously disapprove, for example, Catholics must contend with divorced/remarried families, or unwed parents.
- You don't get to teach bias in schools. THey needn't approve to tolerate and coexist. That is the requirementof a pluralistic society.
- Whether it is changeable for some does not affect the reality that it is not changeable for all. Sexuality is on a gradient, that's well established. Along these lines, when did your average straight person choose to be straight, and why on EARTH would gay people choose to belong to a villified despise minority?
- Religion is a choice. We do not allow discrimination on the basis of religion; we do not prevent Jews or Wiccans or Hindus from marrying just because they are a small minority.
- You can't prove a negative, of course, and a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument is fallacious --it attempts to establish causality by coincidence. There is good evidence that marriage rates are declining in Europe regardless of marriage equality. But why let quantitative analysis get in the way of breathless hyperbole.
I feel sick to be back on this merry go round again listening to the same vile lies and bigotry again. Let's face it, the two sides are talking past each other. There is no common ground: either you believe I'm a full citizen, entitled to the love and respect of any other, or you don't. Kudos to Susan Russell and others for keeping the religious freedom question on target: freedom of religion means one religion doesn't decide who you can and can't marry!