The return of the classic "Today's Warm and Fuzzy Thought".
Today the Washington State Supreme Court ruled that the law banning same-sex marriage in the state does not violate the Constitution and marriage rights should only be given to male-female partners. Their reasoning, same-sex couples aren't capable of having children, so for the best interest of children, gay men and women should not be allowed to marry.
Apparently in the majority opinion, some justices even admitted that same-sex marriage will eventually come about, it just should be something for the legislature to handle not the courts. Thank God these justices didn't sit on the Supreme Court during Brown v. Board of Education. We will still be waiting for an end to segregation.
Earlier this month, the highest court in New York ruled similarly.
Here is my thought, if you want to make it about that then make it about that. I would like to see a same-sex partnership sue in the state of Washington that a mixed gender couple who cannot have children naturally should have their marriage nullified. If the legal basis for marriage is whether or not you CAN have children, then make it so. I hereby propose the following Constitutional Amendment (also a return of a favorite of mine):
Marriage shall consist of only a union between two persons that are capable of producing a child. Because children should only be raised in a two parent male/female household, no government support, credit or recognition shall be granted to persons having children that have not entered into a union. All unions sanctioned by the government shall be required to produce at least one child in eighteen months time or the union will be nullified. Divorce will no longer be granted to married persons that have children.
That my friends levels the playing field. Saying that same-sex couples can't marry because they can't have children is a cop out. If you don't want my husband and I to marry, then tell me it is because I am gay and not because I can't have a child.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Hmm I think that it opens an interesting legislature door though. The people that already have children and are commited can come forth and show they have raised, or are raising children and that although procreation may not be the purpose of marriage, children have already happened.
Not to mention that I can have children married to a man or woman so it brings up even more interesting possiblities for alternative legislature as far as choice and female body rights goes...
Post a Comment