gay marriage in Washington?

[rubycat]

The Washington Supreme Court decision in Andersen v. King County will be released tomorrow at 8. Is here.

http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.notice

Why do I feel such dread?  Despite trying not to have any expecations, I did!  And now I find myself overwhelmed with extreme anger, disappointment, outrage, saddness...ANGER!

Lorraine sent me

Comments

[rubygloomrox]

the state has an interest in regulating relationships that produce children.
So it all comes down to us being incubators again, eh? So then in argument, couples who are unable to produce children aren't going to be granted marriage either? That just makes me furious. I don't see how they can even rule like that, but I feel dread, too.

[rubycat]

the argument about supporting marriages that produce CHILDREN is so fucking ridiculous that it makes me choke.

And that fact that it is this pathetic argument that is being held up as a way to take away my constitutional rights ? Just makes me very sad and afraid of and for my country.

[aqua_blurr]

Hey, doesn't WA state allow gay foster parents and adoption? For a little while, my gf and I considered adoption and also foster-to-adopt. We contacted a foster care agency and they were all over us like a puppy on a loved owner. I mean, they were practically humping our legs in excitement to get us in their program. In fact, I'm sure WA allows for gays and lesbians to adopt, jointly even.

So if the state thinks it's okay for gays and lesbians to be parents to children, then they can't deny us marriage based on wanting to "regulate" our relationships which may or may not produce or include children. Oh, don't answer that, I'm sure I don't want to know.

[rubycat]

Sorry, nope. The state could give a flying rats ass about foster kids.

They only want marriages that promote procreation. Since we can't do it without assistance, they're not interested. And the poor straight people! Gosh, what if it hurts their feelings if we get married! Yes. That really is what they said. "given the clear hardship faced by same-sex couples evidenced in this lawsuit, the legislature may want to reexamine the impact of the marriage laws on all citizens of this state,"

and of course you've seen this

[rubycat]

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/349

So what fucking leg were they standing on again?

So angry today.

Re: and of course you've seen this

[aqua_blurr]

This is so frustrating and angering. WA gays and lesbians are allowed--and in fact encouraged--to become parents by JOINT adoption, which is legal in only eight other states besides WA, btw, implicitly acknowledging the value/status of homosexual partners.

However, the state thinks it's most important to provide legal protection/rights/responsibilities only to heterosexuals because they MAY choose to have non-adoptive families? Why? What's so special about heterosexual non-adoptive families? Especially in terms of state interest? I would think the state would have a greater interest in supporting all adoptive familes, since it's got to foot the bill for foster care otherwise.

I would have respect for their argument if the state came back and said, "Only those adults choosing to have children or adopt are allowed to marry. You can get a marriage license when you bring in your child's birth certificate or adoption papers."

there we have it

[rubycat]

Marriage is about procreation and since homs can't without "assistance"...

the state is acting COMPLETELY RATIONALLY when it passes the law denying us the right to marry.

Don't forget to vote this year. Fuck Justice Madsen.