Another Court Upholds Injustice
It is a sad day for monogamously coupled homosexual Washington residents today. The Washington State Supreme Court (which I recently found out is elected btw) joined NY and a few southern states in deciding to uphold the state's Defense of Marraige Act (DOMA). I've been reading emails all day from Amazon's GLBT employees about it, and they've been sending links to articles (one of which was written by a freelance journalist for the Seattle PI who works for Amazon). Here are some significant snippets (with commentary, of course):
From "State Supreme Court upholds gay marriage ban": Writing for a 5-4 majority, Justice Barbara Madsen said the state's Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and woman, is constitutional because it furthers the state's interest of stable, child-producing unions.
...
Sen. Val Stevens, the Lake Stevens Republican who intervened in the case, praised the Supreme Court for upholding the Legislature.
"This is the right thing for our children, families and our communities," Stevens said in a statement. "It is good public policy for the state to encourage marriage between a man and a woman."
I think it's worthwhile to note that no heterosexual marraige would be adversely affected if committed, monogamous homosexuals were also allowed to marry (in a legal sense, which is not to be confused with the religious sense). Encouraging heterosexual couples to marry to create a stable environment for children (which is a really good idea) is a wholly different and independent issue from allowing committed, monogamous homosexuals to be legally bound to each other for the rest of their lives. Refusing homosexuals that right does not encourage heterosexual marraige, and granting homosexuals that right does not discourage heterosexual marraige.
Though the article seems to have been edited since this morning, the following section was in the original version:
Sen. Dan Swecker, R-Rochester, said the "Supreme Court's ruling is in line with the public's wishes." "I think that, historically, marriage has been about providing for the next generation, and that it is only in the modern era that we've decided the issue is love between two people," Swecker said. "Love comes and goes, but a commitment to the next generation has to be sustainable. If we start to redefine marriage, it will diminish our commitment to marriage and stable families for future generations." (emphasis added)
And what an insightful GLAmazonian (Gay/Lesbian Amazonian) had to say:
He forgot the bit, historically speaking, about marriage for stopping wars by marrying your enemies, gaining political power by uniting countries, or my favorite, help with holding your world domination status as Alexander the Great did by marrying the daughter of the strongest political leader in each country he conquered and leaving them to rule in his name while he moved onto another country and another wife. People still marry today for power and wealth over love or children. Historically speaking I agree that love has been usually the last thing on the list of reasons to marry, historically speaking.
I mean where would we be without arranged marriages?
Love is for mistresses and elicit affairs. There is no place for it in the holy bounds of matrimony. Love is something to be hidden and shunned. Marriage should be left to only involve power and procreation.
I don't really understand what "historically" has to do with anything. When presented with more information that breaks historical stereotypes, why to we stick to historical precedent? It makes so much more sense to break from tradition when we become more enlightened than those that founded the tradition.
I mean, historically blacks have been treated as property. But now we've become enlightened enough to realize that they're actually people with feelings (imagine that!) which is (and I hope all the politicians would agree) a good thing.
Another GLAmazonian said the following:
one does not have to believe in ANY god to marry. You have to go to the courthouse to get a license to marry, not a church or synagogue. It is a legal contract. Add faith and religion if you like, but boiled down, it is simply a contract with a lot of rights attached. I'm fine if you dont want me to have a gay wedding in your church, but don't deny me the right that all straight people have. I pay taxes too.
As a purely legal matter, gay marraige should not even be an issue. Only when the separation of Church and State is violated can there be any question about it. Since homosexuality isn't against all religions (i.e. atheism, Satanism), the state has no right to deny equal rights to all citizens (including the right to marry for love).
From 'Maybe someday it will count here', by a GLAmazonian freelancer for the Seattle PI:
We got hitched in Vermont, tied the knot in Portland and married again on a cruise ship in Vancouver, B.C., just the other week.
And maybe someday it will count here at home.
Of course it counts to us. We know we'll be together forever, wife and wife. But we were hoping that the state of Washington might on this day acknowledge the fact that people like us are not an attack on marriage or families.
We tried not to get our hopes up, but couldn't quash at least a small thrill at the idea that this ruling could make us "legal."
Unfortunately, the court said no. The reason: "to promote procreation and encourage stable families."
Well, tell that to our two children.
We lead an almost frighteningly typical suburban existence: Two kids, a commute, a mortgage, a lawn that needs to be mowed. But in the eyes of our government -- not our church, ironically enough -- the love of my life and I are viewed as strangers to each other.
Because we are lucky enough to live in a state that allows gay couples to adopt, we are not legally viewed as strangers to our children. Both of us are listed on their birth certificates as parents, though only one of us gave birth to them. Both of us have the right to make decisions about our sons' schooling, about their medical care, about their excessive consumption of Thomas the Tank Engine toys.
These are real people we're talking about here. Real people with real lives who are really part of the human condition. They're not trying to maliciously "stick it to the man" because they want to be rebellious and see society crumble into anarchy - an image they're often associated with when demonized in heartless conservative rhetoric (not all conservative rhetoric, just the heartless kind). Illinois U.S. Senate candidate Alan Keyes called Mary Cheney a "selfish hedonist", and then went on to tell the press that "I have said that if you are actively engaging in homosexual relations, those relations are about selfish hedonism. If my daughter were a lesbian, I'd look at her and say, 'That is a relationship that is based on selfish hedonism.' I would also tell my daughter that it's a sin, and she needs to pray to the Lord God to help her to deal with that sin" (source) - that's the heartless kind of rhetoric that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation. All homosexuals want is to be recognized as human beings equal with the rest of us, instead of as second class citizens as they are now.
From "Rational Lampoon: How to make a thorny constitutional question disappear":
The Massachusetts legislature offered three reasons for banning gay marriage: 1) "providing a favorable setting for procreation"; 2) "ensuring the optimal setting for child rearing"; and 3) "preserving scarce state and financial resources." The New York legislature offered substantially similar state objectives: 1) whether, for "the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships" by providing an "inducement" for those heterosexual parents to marry; and 2) whether "it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father."
...
The Massachusetts court ... held that procreation is not the sole purpose of marriage ("people who cannot stir from their deathbed may marry"). Then it found that a state interest in "optimal child rearing" arrangements cannot rationally be met if the children of gay parents are precluded from the protection of marriage laws.
...
the Washington majority finds that the stated interest in rearing children in a home headed by "opposite-sex parents" is legitimate. Why? Marriage must be limited to straight couples because "children tend to thrive in families consisting of a father, mother, and their biological children." Children also "tend to thrive" in Cleveland. Oh wait, that one is irrelevant.
...
Even the most deferential review should grapple with whether banning gay marriage really encourages straight marriage; whether there is something about marriage that magically lures heterosexual parents into its grasp-something that would evaporate if it were also extended to gay parents. Even deferential review that was also deaf, dumb, and blind would do more than just assert that gay marriage is illegal because kids "thrive" in straight homes. That claim is not just slightly over- or underinclusive, as the majority would have it. It's nonresponsive. Or, as the dissenters put it, better than I have: "denying same-sex couples the right to marry has no prospect of furthering any of those interests."
I haven't studied any ruling so logically unsound as the one handed down today. The claim that "children tend to thrive in families consisting of a father, mother, and their biological children" makes no statement whatsoever about how children "tend" if they are raised by committed, monogamous homosexuals. More to the point, it does not imply at all that children raised in such a way are harmed. But this is the assertion that the ruling was made on - that children will "tend" to be so bad off if raised by homosexuals that it would be better for them to be part of an utterly broken, though heterosexual, home. It is shameful for public policy to be based on such irrational hogwash.
Jack