While three major gay rights groups have just combined their resources to spend $250,000 on full-page newspaper ads to appear in 50 papers across the country declaring their determination to continue fighting for equal marriage rights for gay and lesbian Americans, the Washington State Supreme Court has reported that it will hand down its decision regarding the state's same-sex marriage ban.
KIRO reported, "...Attorneys defending the marriage law said the state has a rational reason for limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, because the state has an interest in regulating relationships that produce children."
My initial reaction to this report was WHAT? Okay, IF we, the people, grant the state the right to regulate relationships that produce children, what does that have to do with marriage contracts? It's the sex, not the marriage, that produces children. So if having children is not a legal requirement of marriage nor is being married a legal requirement to having children, WTF with this reasoning? The conservatives, and even I, would like all children to be born in loving relationships with the benefit of marriage, but we have no right to require it. And the law does not.
If THE STATE feels it needs to regulate procreation, that is very different than regulating marriage. What about people who chose to have children in a loving, committed, non-marriage state (e.g. Kurt Russel and Goldie Hawn)? What of the couple who wants to marry but have no kids? What about the Brady Bunch? From what I've heard, getting married reduces the chance of sex, and therefore conception.
If "THE STATE has an interest in regulating relationships that produce children," then it should be draconian on het-marriage contracts have no problem one way or the other with same-sex marriage.
Regardless, the decision is expected to be released tomorrow morning. Stay tuned.
Seattle Times
No comments:
Post a Comment