Editor’s Note: Another great diary! Thanks for posting, Betsy. -Elisa
What’s with New York citing children as a rationale for denying the benefit of marriage to same-sex couples?
Weren’t most gay people raised by straight parents?
And what about intersex people or transgendered people? How, ultimately, are we going do define sex in order to make sure that only the ‘right’ kinds of couples get married?
And if it’s better for kids to have a mom and a dad in this case, why isn’t it ALWAYS better, and why therefore don’t we deny divorce to couples with children?
Are there seriously folks who think that your average out-of-wedlock-sex-having straight person would look at the possibility that gays can get married and have that turn them off the prospect of marriage? Apparently, some of them sit on the court in New York.
There’s an editorial in the NY Times today that quotes this jaw-dropping language from the decision:
“But the New York court also put forth another argument, sometimes called the “reckless procreation” rationale. “Heterosexual intercourse,” the plurality opinion stated, “has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not.” Gays become parents, the opinion said, in a variety of ways, including adoption and artificial insemination, “but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse.”
Consequently, “the Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples.”
SO, they’re saying that though gay couples are likely to be more deliberate about getting married and becoming parents, and therefore more stable, we must deny them that right because somehow if gay people can get married, reckless straight people who would otherwise get married to give their kids ‘stability’ would not? WHAT? Does that make anyone else’s head spin?