It Just Keeps Getting Better

Via Andrew Sullivan this choice bit:

This afternoon, during the cross-examination of the psychologist Letitia Anne Peplau in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial, the Alliance Defense Fund tweeted, “Witness admits same-sex couples not similarly situated to opposite sex couples, same sex couples cannot have unintended pregnancies.” Now, why, you might ask, does that matter, and why was this an “admission” worth noting for the anti-gay-marriage side?

Sullivan quotes the supposed rationale:

In a 2005 case called Morrison v. Sadler, an appellate court in Indiana concluded that same-sex couples with children did not need marriage because they were already so stable—it was so expensive and complicated for them to adopt or conceive a child that they were bound to stay together. “By contrast,” the court observed, “procreation by ‘natural’ reproduction may occur without any thought for the future.” The stork could come calling on heterosexual couples without invitation, and when it did, marriage helped ensure that the surprised progenitors would stay around to raise the children.

This is almost as good as the "marriage is to insure continuation of the species" argument. Aside from the light it casts on heterosexual relationships -- i.e., gays are ready and willing to undertake the responsibility of raising a familiy, but straights have to be forced into it by the law -- it completely sidesteps the whole question of rights and protections for the parents and children.

And it's a decision from Indiana, for crying out loud. Given Indiana's profile on civil rights, both historically and currently (remember that Indiana was the point of origin of the KKK), I'd hardly look there for cogent reasoning on these issues.

One can't begin to imagine (at least this one can't) what the pro-8 side expects to make of this. It should be fun to see, though.