?

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: 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 ..... )

46 Read Comments