To be honest, accidental pregnancies was part of the reason (Biblically) that marriage was invented to protect women and children. In other religions ‘marriage’ was a point so that men could have sons to carry on their name within tribes (bastards were not recognized), and fathers could get girls out from under their financial burden.
However, does this also give the court a right to ban traditional marriage where the male or female has proved barren? Or between a man and women beyond the age of bearing children at all?
I have tried to submit two urls covering this story and each has been blacklisted by the forum’s algorithms so I will try to just put the google search url covering this
“Only a man and a woman can beget a child together without advance planning, which means that opposite-sex couples have a unique tendency to produce unplanned and unintended offspring,” wrote Paul Clement, a prominent attorney representing congressional Republicans in the DOMA case.
Clement added in his brief to the Supreme Court arguing to uphold that law that the government has a legitimate interest in solely recognizing marriages between men and women because it encourages them to form stable family units.
“Because same-sex relationships cannot naturally produce offspring, they do not implicate the State’s interest in responsible procreation and childrearing in the same way that opposite-sex relationships do,” attorneys who are seeking to uphold Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California in 2008, argued in their brief. The opponents to gay marriage also argue it’s possible the public perception of marriage would change if gay couples were allowed to wed, discouraging straight people from marrying.