Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

US appeals court ‘could rule to lift California gay marriage ban’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Cannot produce children??? There are loads of gay poarents!

  2. Charlotte 7 Dec 2010, 4:16pm

    It looks that way. Fingers crossed…:)

  3. Not every straight married couple produces children and many straight married couples don’t want to procreate either and some can’t. Straight couples who marry after child bearing years can’t procreate either. Its just a “religious” red herring to justify the ban on gays marrying, as if allowing us to would deter straights from marrying or procreating. It doesn’t change marriage one bit, it just expands it.

    So, that said, what about our own government lifting the ban on civil marriage? There is NO valid reason to maintain it, none!

  4. Fingers and toes crossed. We’ve been waiting years for this. Here’s hoping the judges rule in our favour!

  5. Gay couples can produce children just as good as any straight couple that needs a small element of assisted conception. And why would that be a reason to deny anyone marriage anyway? Does California currently screen all straight couples to make sure they can and want to have children?

    And who said marriage was solely for procreation? Oh, yes, the loony fundies *rolls eyes* But they also say that divorce shouldn’t be allowed so why not ban that then?

    I really hope that the judges rule in favour of common sense.

    And, yes, Robert – sadly, in the UK it seems you don’t even need to make up a silly reason to discriminate against gay people regarding access to civil marriage.

  6. For an enlightened discussion and commentary on yesterday’s court proceedings in California, see:

    http://www.towleroad.com/2010/12/prop-8-appeal-what-we-heard-what-we-didnt-hear-whats-next.html

  7. TheSuburbanBi 8 Dec 2010, 12:12am

    ‘Cannot produce children’ sounds a lot like the ‘should not produce children’ arguments used against interracial marriages in the US in the not distant enough past.

    Bans on same-sex marriage will eventually all prove unconstitutional, as will DADT, but the religious fundamentalists that have a stranglehold on America’s national conversation will not go down without a few hundred more fights. They will eventually fail, but they will exact the most damage they can on the way down.

  8. Iris, you’re absolutely right about that! But I’ve no doubt the religious bigots would find another preposterous excuse to explain away why barren couples and those choosing not to procreate should be allowed to marry. They’ll use that one man one woman mantra for starters which means absolutely nothing. In fact, I think they’d be hard pressed to come up with one logical reason other than that. Either way it would be risible at best.

    I hate to keep going on about this but why hasn’t Summerskill et al not mentioned any more since his reversal on marriage equality. There is NOTHING on StonewallUK’s website either. All of us must keep up the pressure to make it a reality, no backing down. Hold their feet to the fire, 24/7, 365.

  9. Tim Hopkins 8 Dec 2010, 5:23pm

    Robert, the reason I was told by one conservative religious person, to justify why it’s good for infertile mixed-sex couples to marry, but not same-sex couples, was that God could always perform a miracle and enable an infertile person to produce a child after they were married.

    Apparently God’s miraculous powers are rather limited when it comes to same-sex couples! Rather more limited than many same-sex couples themselves.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all