?

Log in

No account? Create an account
the girl with violets in her lap [userpic]

July 14th, 2006 (01:08 pm)
morose
Tags:

current mood: srsly

Gay couples don't deserve the right to get married because they are... better parents than straight couples?

Excerpt:

[T]he New York court also put forth another argument, sometimes called the “reckless procreation” rationale. “Heterosexual intercourse,” the plurality opinion stated, “has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not.” Gays become parents, the opinion said, in a variety of ways, including adoption and artificial insemination, “but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse.”

Consequently, “the Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples... the Legislature could rationally offer the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples only.”

...

Wow! Did you hear what the New York Supreme Court said, folks? They said it's not that gays aren't good enough to get married, it's that STRAIGHTS aren't good enough to NOT get married!

No one could ever accuse them of homophobia now.

::headdesk:: Seriously, people. Stop trying to play both sides of the fence, placating both the radical righties and your own uneasy feelings around homosexuality by keeping gay marriage illegal while pretending that you're totally absolutely 100% a-okay with gay people. You're not fooling anyone.

Comments

Posted by: rainswolf (rainswolf)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 05:17 pm (UTC)

It's so dumb how an argument that should be about equal rights has turned into a semantics game as to how exactly we should define "marriage." People's obsession with defining "marriage" has kept others from rights for years and years and will continue to do so.

I am starting to think we should call them "commitments" or whatever and get the rights and then in 30 years when the political climate has changed we can worry about redefining "marriage."

Posted by: the girl with violets in her lap (slammerkinbabe)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 05:20 pm (UTC)

Frankly, it's not such a bad idea. Separate but equal sucks, for sure, but people forget that separate but equal in terms of civil rights, though it was abused horrendously, was nevertheless a political stepping-stone. I'm not defending the history of separate-but-equal bullshit in civil rights legislation, just pointing out that full equality often doesn't come overnight, or in one step.

Posted by: rainswolf (rainswolf)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 08:21 pm (UTC)

Posted by: the girl with violets in her lap (slammerkinbabe)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 05:21 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Tasha Rebekah Martin (lietya)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 05:34 pm (UTC)

Posted by: the girl with violets in her lap (slammerkinbabe)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 05:43 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Tasha Rebekah Martin (lietya)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 05:47 pm (UTC)

Posted by: rainswolf (rainswolf)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 08:18 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Tasha Rebekah Martin (lietya)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 08:29 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Tasha Rebekah Martin (lietya)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 05:28 pm (UTC)
WTF

....what?!! I honestly cannot follow that logic. At all.

Posted by: michael (july4th)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 05:29 pm (UTC)

Hee. See my comment below.

Posted by: the girl with violets in her lap (slammerkinbabe)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 05:33 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Tasha Rebekah Martin (lietya)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 05:37 pm (UTC)

Posted by: the girl with violets in her lap (slammerkinbabe)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 05:44 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Tasha Rebekah Martin (lietya)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 05:49 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Katie (october31st)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 05:54 pm (UTC)

Posted by: the girl with violets in her lap (slammerkinbabe)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 05:57 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Tasha Rebekah Martin (lietya)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 05:57 pm (UTC)

Posted by: the girl with violets in her lap (slammerkinbabe)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 06:05 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Tasha Rebekah Martin (lietya)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 08:31 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Underwear Ninja (chavvah)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 06:18 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Tasha Rebekah Martin (lietya)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 08:33 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Popcorn the Bearcat (agatha_mandrake)
Posted at: July 16th, 2006 03:19 am (UTC)

Posted by: Tasha Rebekah Martin (lietya)
Posted at: July 16th, 2006 04:35 am (UTC)

Posted by: Popcorn the Bearcat (agatha_mandrake)
Posted at: July 20th, 2006 05:22 am (UTC)

Posted by: michael (july4th)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 05:39 pm (UTC)

Posted by: the girl with violets in her lap (slammerkinbabe)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 05:44 pm (UTC)

Posted by: michael (july4th)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 05:45 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Underwear Ninja (chavvah)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 06:08 pm (UTC)

Posted by: the girl with violets in her lap (slammerkinbabe)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 06:09 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Underwear Ninja (chavvah)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 06:14 pm (UTC)

Posted by: michael (july4th)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 05:28 pm (UTC)

But that doesn't even make SENSE!

I...

But...

What...

Argh. People are dumb.

(Thus illustrates why I would probably not make a good lawyer.)

Posted by: the girl with violets in her lap (slammerkinbabe)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 05:34 pm (UTC)

See above, but I warn you, it's dumb.

Posted by: Tasha Rebekah Martin (lietya)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 05:35 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Katie (october31st)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 05:41 pm (UTC)
bi

So marriage exists only as a foundation for having kids, huh? Well, I'm sure the infertile and childless-by-choice couples across New York will be pleased to know this.

*facepalm* I have never been more ashamed of my state.

Posted by: the girl with violets in her lap (slammerkinbabe)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 05:43 pm (UTC)

I know, right? WTF. Honestly.

Posted by: Underwear Ninja (chavvah)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 06:15 pm (UTC)
dear lj

Yeah, I'm not even from New York, and I'm not too impressed. :P

Posted by: A journal of creative outlet. (cinediva)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 06:53 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Electric Landlady (electricland)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 06:49 pm (UTC)
Alice - huh?

that is SUCH a bizarre ruling.

Good article though, thanks for linking to it!

Posted by: A journal of creative outlet. (cinediva)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 06:53 pm (UTC)

It's irritating that the finding presupposes children are the primary motivation for any couple to get married.

This is the most illogical, backwards thing I've ever heard of. Not to mention a boobytrapped backhanded compliment. Oy.

Posted by: Erin (givesmevoice)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 09:07 pm (UTC)
BTTF Marty's confused

::blink::

Posted by: the girl with violets in her lap (slammerkinbabe)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 09:59 pm (UTC)

I love your icon + your comment.

Posted by: Erin (givesmevoice)
Posted at: July 14th, 2006 10:00 pm (UTC)

Posted by: Underwear Ninja (chavvah)
Posted at: July 15th, 2006 01:00 am (UTC)

Posted by: Spencer Irving (archaica)
Posted at: July 15th, 2006 02:17 pm (UTC)

It looks as though the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals agrees with New York:

In a decision written by Chief Circuit Judge James B. Loken (a one-time law clerk to Justice Byron R. White), the Eighth Circuit overturned a federal judge's decision striking down the Nebraska state amendment. It found that the ban should be judged under equal protection analysis only by rational basis review, and concluded that the legislature had sufficient reason to steer child-bearing into marriage. Since only opposite-sex couples can procreate, and since only opposite-sex couples can produce children "by accident," the legislature had a legitimate state interest in confining marriage to them, the Court indicated.

"Whatever our personal views regarding this political and sociological debate, we cannot conclude that the state's justification lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests," Judge Loken wrote.


More here

This is possibly the *worst* justification for banning gay marriage, and it's not *even* rational. Oh, wait, it's rational if you think all gays are trying to "induct" people into THE GAY (Of course, when parents beat their children for even sounding gay, they're not trying to induct them into a harmful straight lifestyle, no ..... )

Posted by: Popcorn the Bearcat (agatha_mandrake)
Posted at: July 16th, 2006 03:21 am (UTC)
Wuh?
wtf

This makes my brain hurt. Surely someone pointed out to the judges they were full of shit?

46 Read Comments