Gay marriage opponents are using the plot of "Knocked Up" in their defense of California's Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
In his brief for the defense on why the law should only recognize marriages between opposite-sex couples, Paul D. Clement, a solicitor general under George W. Bush, wrote that traditional marriage laws "reflect a unique social difficulty with opposite-sex couples that is not present with same-sex couples -- namely, the undeniable and distinct tendency of opposite-sex relationships to produce unplanned and unintended pregnancies ... Unintended children produced by opposite-sex relationships and raised out-of-wedlock would pose a burden on society."
In summation: Gays require "substantial advance planning" to have kids and don't suffer the same "threat of irresponsible procreation" as prophylactically challenged straights. Ipso facto, they don't need equal access to a legal contract that carries close to 1,049 statutory provisions, including tax breaks, disability benefits and joint parenting rights.
This isn't the first time the state's "interest in the family tradition" has been used to argue against gay marriage, just the most recent. (And maybe the only to identify the "threat" of irresponsible procreation.)
And while the high court prepares to hear the case, it remains unclear when exactly Clement will seek the annulment of 1.5 million infertile marriages in the United States. You know, the other people who don't accidentally get pregnant.
Because undoing all those "unnecessary" marriages is going to take a lot of paperwork. He should probably get started.