Washington their hands of the issue

Washington State supreme court has ruled that marriage discrimination is not unconstitutional. Very, very disappointing.

And so very offensive. The explaination for the ruling seems not to rely on law, but bigotry and puritanic interference into people's lives.

From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

In a splintered decision, Justice Barbara Madsen wrote that the state's marriage law was enacted to "promote procreation and to encourage stable families."

"The legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the State's legitimate interests in procreation and the well-being of children."

She wrote that the same-sex couples failed to prove that they had a fundamental right to marry, or that the state's 1998 Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional.

The 5-4 ruling -- signed by Chief Justice Gerry Alexander and Justice Charles Johnson -- also noted a hardship for same-sex couples, however, and suggested that the legislature "may want to re-examine the impact of the marriage laws on all citizens of this state."

Yeah, I'm sure when the state constitution and statutes were written, the legal recognition of marriage rights and obligations were designed "to promote procreation." Because in a time of no available birth control, it was difficult impregnate a woman without the promise that she would be a man's property and required to service him.

I maintain the marriage ≠ conception argument. Or even moreso with the options available today, marriage ≠ procreation.

And to put forth that Washington state marriage laws were enacted for any specific design is just preposterous—it's not like Washington state came up with the idea of marriage. They were just a newly-settled territory that had to adopt some laws because as settlers wanted to get married and were outside any recognized jurisdiction. It's not like "New! Marriage Laws!" was part of a public relations campaign by the Washington Territory Pro-Procreation Committee. (You too can populate the farthest part of the Louisianna Purchase!)

And discrimation for "the well being of children"?! Are you kidding me?! Don't you a-holes pay attention to anyone who actually knows something about that?