Everything's Breeder in Texas

Yes, by all means, let's hear
these people out...

It's become standard practice that when a gay marriage ban gets shot down by a federal judge, he or she will issue a stay so that opponents of same-sex marriage can put together an appeal. This appeal, up until now, has invariably consisted of some horseshit about how gay people are God's punishment for 9/11. Next there's a debate, people wave signs outside the courthouse and everyone pretends that rabid-foam homophobia is an equally valid viewpoint and that we'll just have to agree to disagree on the whole damnation thing. The original ruling is upheld, gay marriage licenses are issued. The end.

But hang on. Last week, in a stunningly original move, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott filed an appeal not based on bronze-age social taboos. In his appeal, Abbott argues that the State of Texas can ban gay marriage because same-sex couples can't produce offspring.

"Well he's got us there. We got this thing off Craigslist."

-Lesbians

I feel betrayed. By science.

"Texas's marriage laws are rooted in a basic reality of human life: procreation requires a male and a female. Two people of the same sex cannot, by themselves, procreate..."

-Texas Attorney General and graduate of 

8th grade sex-ed class, Greg Abbott

Well, yeah so technically two gay people can't-but that's not really the...goddamnit...

Above: what inevitably happens
when you let gay people be parents.

Abbott goes on to argue that the State should encourage opposite-sex marriage (or Marriage Classic®) "in order to minimize the social costs that can result from procreation outside of stable lasting relationships." Wait, social costs? Is he saying that Texas should prevent gay people from getting married because they can't make babies on their own and if they do somehow get their hands on one, they're just going to get divorced anyway and then the kid will end up on welfare or in jail? Because holy shit, Greg, I mean, holy shit.

He thinks he's the Texas AG, which is
 correct, but he can still go fuck himself.

Allow me to sum up Abbott's argument, which I see as two-fold: firstly, he's saying that that gay relationships are inherently unstable and short lived, and that children raised by gay parents will become a drag on society's resources. Secondly, he's saying that the sole purpose of marriage is procreation and that marriages that fail to produce children are valueless. I'd like to address those points in order: firstly, Greg Abbott can go fuck himself. Secondly, no really, he can go fuck himself, I mean, who does this guy think he is?

"Sorry childless couple, dogs don't
count. Your marriage is a sham."

-Greg Abbott

Ok, fine, two people of the same sex can't swap genetic material with each other and crank out a kid. Whatever. What in the name of hell does that have to do with a legal right to be married? If the State is going to ban same-sex marriages because gay people can't procreate without outside help, is it also going to ban marriage between straight couples who can't, say for medical reasons, have kids? Or marriage between people who choose not to have kids? And if not, why not? If the ability to procreate is the requisite for a legal marriage in Texas, then that needs to be the rule for everybody, doesn't it?

Look, maybe this is the childless shut-in in me talking, but having functional and compatible reproductive organs doesn't necessarily mean that two people will make good parents and it certainly shouldn't give them some kind exclusive right to the tax-breaks, hospital visits and gift registries that come along with marriage.

Dear Jack and Nicole,

Congratulations on your sexual orientation and subsequent wedding. Please enjoy this crock-pot: a symbol of your biological ability to produce offspring. May the union of your male and female genitalia produce viable offspring and ensure our great state's future.

Best Wishes,

Texas