Conneticut court finds law discriminates by limiting marriage to het couples
Conneticut court overturns same-sex marriage ban!
Justice Peter T. Zarella wrote that he believes there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage, and the court's majority failed to discuss the purpose of marriage laws, which he said is to "privilege and regulate procreative conduct."
Zarella added, "The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry. If the state no longer has an interest in the regulation of procreation, then that is a decision for the legislature or the people of the state and not this court." (emphasis mine)
Innnnteresting. I mean, yes, coming from a biblical background I can understand that some people regard marriage as being primarily about procreation, with partnership being necessary for procreation. Not saying I agree, but I sort of get it.
Of course, I also think it's CRAP because marriage is about so much more than just regulating procreative conduct. If that's true, then straight couples who don't want kids shouldn't be able to get the full benefits of marriage either. And gay couples that DO want kids should get the full benefits of marriage.
Whether marriage was originally about biology or not, I don't feel it justifies the effects it has on society NOW, nor the current bigotry of different laws for different types of people.
In other news, it's been a busy week. Last night was our monthly English Ministry Committee meeting. Lots of stuff still being debated, and lots of balls to juggle. Work-wise, the announcement just went out about my boss being moved to a new department (and being demoted). Again, I'm thankful I still have a job.
OH YEAH. THANKSGIVING. *falls over* Thank God for a long weekend. HAPPY TURKEY WEEKEND, MY FELLOW CANUCKS.
Justice Peter T. Zarella wrote that he believes there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage, and the court's majority failed to discuss the purpose of marriage laws, which he said is to "privilege and regulate procreative conduct."
Zarella added, "The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry. If the state no longer has an interest in the regulation of procreation, then that is a decision for the legislature or the people of the state and not this court." (emphasis mine)
Innnnteresting. I mean, yes, coming from a biblical background I can understand that some people regard marriage as being primarily about procreation, with partnership being necessary for procreation. Not saying I agree, but I sort of get it.
Of course, I also think it's CRAP because marriage is about so much more than just regulating procreative conduct. If that's true, then straight couples who don't want kids shouldn't be able to get the full benefits of marriage either. And gay couples that DO want kids should get the full benefits of marriage.
Whether marriage was originally about biology or not, I don't feel it justifies the effects it has on society NOW, nor the current bigotry of different laws for different types of people.
In other news, it's been a busy week. Last night was our monthly English Ministry Committee meeting. Lots of stuff still being debated, and lots of balls to juggle. Work-wise, the announcement just went out about my boss being moved to a new department (and being demoted). Again, I'm thankful I still have a job.
OH YEAH. THANKSGIVING. *falls over* Thank God for a long weekend. HAPPY TURKEY WEEKEND, MY FELLOW CANUCKS.