Kentucky: We Have An ‘Economic Interest’ To Ban Gay Marriage, Keep Birth Rates High

Demonstrators for and against same-sex marriage protest during a rally in front of a federal courthouse in San Francisco, Monday, Jan. 11, 2010. The first federal trial to determine if the U.S. Constitution prohibits... Demonstrators for and against same-sex marriage protest during a rally in front of a federal courthouse in San Francisco, Monday, Jan. 11, 2010. The first federal trial to determine if the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from outlawing same-sex marriage gets under way in San Francisco on Monday, and the two gay couples on whose behalf the case was brought will be among the first witnesses. (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma) MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

The state of Kentucky is now defending its right to prohibit same-sex marriage with an unconventional stance: Procreation, the purview of heterosexual couples, is good for the economy, so the state has an obligation to ban gay marriage.

Lawyers for the state filed a brief last week after a federal judge ruled it must recognize gay marriages from other states. The lawyers argued opposite-sex married couples recoup the state for the tax benefits they recieve by procreating and thereby improving the state’s economy. Same-sex couples, they argued, do not.

“Same-sex couples are materially different from traditional man-woman couples. Only man-woman couples can naturally procreate,” the lawyers wrote. “Fostering procreation serves a legitimate economic interest that is rationally related to the traditional man-woman marriage model.

The brief, first reported by the Louisville Courier-Journal, was filed as part of the state’s appeal of the federal judge’s decision. Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway (D) declined to appeal the ruling, so Gov. Steve Beshear (D) hired private lawyers to pursue a challenge.

After first arguing that Kentucky had “a basic and fundamental interest in ensuring the existence of the human race” through procreative opposite-sex marriages, the lawyers took things a step further.

“The Commonwealth, however, has an additional interest in promoting procreation — supporting long-term economic stability through stable birth rates,” they wrote.

They then cited research showing that stable birth rates are economically beneficial and international examples of countries encouraging procreation to combat declining birth rates. That was fit into their argument against same-sex marriage.

“Kentucky has an economic interest in procreation,” they said. “Just as governments around the globe promote procreation and birth rates, so does Kentucky’s traditional marriage policy.”

The state’s lawyers then invoked the tax benefits that married couples are granted. Opposite-sex couples offset those costs through their improvement of the long-term economy, but same-sex couples don’t.

“Though there is a cost to Kentucky by granting tax and other benefits to man-woman couples, a stable or growing birth rate offsets the cost,” they wrote. “Only man-woman relationships can naturally procreate, and only those relationships, therefore, are afforded the state sponsored benefit.”

“The Plaintiff, however, seek the same tax and other benefits without furthering Kentucky’s legitimate and vital economic interest. Kentucky’s support of the only type of relationship that can naturally procreate — traditional man-woman couples — by only recognizing traditional marriage is not only rational, but also consistent with sound economic policy.”

Latest DC

Notable Replies

  1. 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.

  2. Avatar for jsfox jsfox says:

    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?

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

  4. 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?

  5. Avatar for bdtex bdtex says:

    Nail head,meet hammer.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

28 more replies

Participants

Avatar for system1 Avatar for bdtex Avatar for lestatdelc Avatar for slbinva Avatar for jsfox Avatar for brooklyndweller Avatar for radicalcentrist Avatar for braxtonbraggart Avatar for trippin Avatar for tigersharktoo Avatar for tsalagi51 Avatar for wwss Avatar for irasdad Avatar for senjaybulworth Avatar for mantan Avatar for billfrompa Avatar for frankly_my_dear Avatar for rockgolf Avatar for hobnailed Avatar for rb639 Avatar for mononucleosis Avatar for dyrnych Avatar for tigerp Avatar for sjk

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Associate Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: