The defendants, in one final bid for the outlawing of gay marriage, stated that allowing homosexual marriage would “sever the connection between natural procreation and marriages” (Obergefell v. Hodges 26). By saying this, the defendants are distinctly stating that marriage is only for procreation and those who ultimately end up getting married, homosexual or heterosexual, are only doing it to have children and procreate. The same defendants also argued that legalizing same-sex marriage would harm marriage by leading to fewer heterosexual marriages (Obergefell v. Hodges 26). These anti-gay rights defendants had no statistical fact off of which this statement was based. After careful evaluation of both the plaintiff’s and defendant 's’ arguments, five out of nine supreme court justices voted in favor of the plaintiff, giving him the majority vote (“Facts of the Case”). At that exact moment, American law changed perpetually to include homosexual marriage as a civil
The defendants, in one final bid for the outlawing of gay marriage, stated that allowing homosexual marriage would “sever the connection between natural procreation and marriages” (Obergefell v. Hodges 26). By saying this, the defendants are distinctly stating that marriage is only for procreation and those who ultimately end up getting married, homosexual or heterosexual, are only doing it to have children and procreate. The same defendants also argued that legalizing same-sex marriage would harm marriage by leading to fewer heterosexual marriages (Obergefell v. Hodges 26). These anti-gay rights defendants had no statistical fact off of which this statement was based. After careful evaluation of both the plaintiff’s and defendant 's’ arguments, five out of nine supreme court justices voted in favor of the plaintiff, giving him the majority vote (“Facts of the Case”). At that exact moment, American law changed perpetually to include homosexual marriage as a civil