Dan Savage had a compelling op-ed piece in the Sunday New York Times about the recent rulings against gay marriage in New York and Washington. Some of the better passages:
What the New York and Washington opinions share -- besides a willful disregard for equal protection clauses in both state Constitutions -- is a heartless lack of concern for the rights of the hundreds of thousands of children being raised by same-sex couples.
Even if gay couples who adopt are more stable, as New York found, don't their children need the security and protections that the court believes marriage affords children? And even if heterosexual sex is essential to the survival of the human race (a point I'm willing to concede), it's hard to see how preventing gay couples from marrying increases heterosexual activity. ("Keep breeding, heterosexuals," the Washington State Supreme Court in effect shouted, "To bed! To bed! To bed!") Both courts have found that my son's parents have no right to marry, but what of my son's right to have married parents?
A perverse cruelty characterizes both decisions. The courts ruled, essentially, that making my child's life less secure somehow makes the life of a child with straight parents more secure. Both courts found that making heterosexual couples stable requires keeping homosexual couples vulnerable. And the courts seemed to agree that heterosexuals can hardly be bothered to have children at all -- or once they've had them, can hardly be bothered to care for them -- unless marriage rights are reserved exclusively for heterosexuals.
Well said. And what a crazy position.
- Log in to post comments
I hadn't realized that those decisions were so focused on children.
It is certainly odd logic, but I guess it is nice to know that the WA courts are concerned with the survival of our species...
Yes, because after all there are so few of us left...
See, thats what I don't understand either...
All of these arguments that come out with procreation as a central tenet apparently think that the human species is in danger of extinction at any moment. Where do they get this notion? We are breeding ourselves to death, yet we need to 'preserve the power of procreation that is only available to heterosexually married folk.' Thats just an assinine position, even before one starts tearing into the definition of marriage or the limits of procreative relationships.
I hadn't realized that those decisions were so focused on children.
Both decisions are, indeed, focused on children. The irony is that children who are being raised by gay and lesbian couples are denied equal protection, too.
The supreme irony is that the NYS Court of Appeals (which is what their "supreme court" is called) essentially said that gay relationships don't need the extra protection of state-sanctioned marriage, because they are longer lasting than opposite sex relationships. (I don't recall the exact language, but that's close enough.) Of course, that is counter to what the homo-haters are saying--they are saying that gay relationships don' last, and, thus, state-sanctioned marriage for same-sex couples would undermine marriage for opposite-sex couples.
If you find that incredulous, so did I.
I think the obvious answer to the arguments put forth by the WA and NY Courts, ones that BTW mimic much of the anti-gay "pro-family" movement's rhetoric, is to push it to its logical conclusion. If reserving marriage rights to heterosexuals is intended to protect children, and is therefore Constitutional, shouldn't we limit marriage in other ways to increase that protection. On the obvious front, where are the laws preventing convicted child molesters from marrying (and therefore becoming parents or step-parents)? What about laws that set a minimum income level before allowing a marriage certificate - after all, the link between poverty and poor child outcomes is probably stronger than the link between het married parents and good child outcomes?
I also think that, because "one man, one woman" laws exclude the intersexed (those people who are not clearly one gender or the other - about 1/2,000 births, IIRC) why is there no enforcement mechanism? It is relatively easy to see how clerks can enforce these laws against same-sex couples, as most of us have an obvious gender. But the intersexed may look like a "normal" person, and it may not be clear that any couple they are a part of is barred from marriage. Therefore, it is time to demand genetic proof of maleness and femaleness of the respective parties before issuing of marriage licenses. Of course, such processes take time to put in place, and may prevent the state from issuing any licenses for quite a while, but if marriage is worth protecting (and these laws are not meant just to gay bash), no one should mind. At the very least, we should be demanding our "pro-family" legislators provide proof that their marriages qualify under the very laws they support - Time for your blood tests, Mr. and Mrs. Bush.