(no subject)
Jul. 14th, 2006 01:08 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Gay couples don't deserve the right to get married because they are... better parents than straight couples?
Excerpt:
...
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.
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.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-14 05:17 pm (UTC)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."
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2006-07-14 05:28 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2006-07-14 05:28 pm (UTC)I...
But...
What...
Argh. People are dumb.
(Thus illustrates why I would probably not make a good lawyer.)
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2006-07-14 05:41 pm (UTC)*facepalm* I have never been more ashamed of my state.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2006-07-14 06:49 pm (UTC)Good article though, thanks for linking to it!
no subject
Date: 2006-07-14 06:53 pm (UTC)This is the most illogical, backwards thing I've ever heard of. Not to mention a boobytrapped backhanded compliment. Oy.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-14 09:07 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2006-07-15 02:17 pm (UTC)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 ..... )
Wuh?
Date: 2006-07-16 03:21 am (UTC)