Thursday, July 27, 2006

Be Encouraged, John and I Can't Get Married In WA

Threats to the future of humanity Hey, see those guy? They're threats to the future of humanity and Washington state's Surpreme Court knows it. They ruled Wednesday that its legislature is entitled to disadvantage gay families. From the ruling (Hat tip to Pam's House Blend):

Under this standard, DOMA [Defense of Marriage Act] is constitutional because the legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children's biological parents. Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not, in the legislature's view, further these purposes.


Really? John and I getting married will stop our straight friends from having babies? How could this possibly have been written with a straight face?

And someone PLEASE tell me, how does keeping us from getting married "encourage families where children are reared in homes headed by the children's biological parents"? Straight friends of mine, does not allowing John and I to protect our family really encourage you in some way? If I were part of a straight couple I would be offended at the implication that I need superior status over others in order to stay married. Is that really what keeps families together?

And how on God's green earth does allowing us to protect our families stand in the way of "furthering the purposes" of procreation? Please, if someone who agrees with this ruling is reading this blog, I beg you to enlighten me.

Even if procreation were central to the purpose of marriage, how would allowing us to marry be any different from allowing an aged couple or a downs syndrome couple (legal) or a hetero couple who decides not to have kids to get married?

There is no logic here, but perhaps there are some politics. It is interesting to note that this ruling was close, a 5-4 decision. None of the dissenters were up for reelection, however, two of the judges writing for the majority opinion are.


3 Comments:

Anonymous Rachel Metheny said...

You guys are so damn cute in that picture. When I back I want to work with you on gay marriage legislation. It WILL happen in our lifetime, even if I will be walking down the ailse at Broadway in a damn wheelchair. Keep the faith, Troy, and keep being vocal. We need you in the struggle.

11:47 AM  
Blogger Troy said...

Rachel, so good to hear from you. We miss you here at Broadway. I hope you are enjoying all of your travels. We certainly have work to do here.

5:51 PM  
Blogger goodwitch said...

I swear...this procreation argument is so hilarious. I keep thinking that if procreation is so damn important to these people, then does that mean everyone should have a fertility test prior to getting married...since it seems the ONLY REASON these goofy people think you should get married is to create a baby.

I could go on...but instead I'll just shake my head and say...the right to marry the person you love should be available to ALL people. I can't wait for that day.

4:39 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home