The judge in this case applied the “what is best for children and society” standard instead of the usual “gay people’s feelings and access to benefits” standard and came to a different conclusion than other courts. (Via Legal Insurrection)
“Defendants rejoin that the laws serve a central state interest of linking children to an intact family formed by their biological parents. Of even more consequence, in this Court’s judgment, defendants assert a legitimate state interest in safeguarding that fundamental social change, in this instance, is better cultivated through democratic consensus. This Court agrees.”
Of course, the Gay Activist Left will summarize this analysis as “Redneck Judge hates gay people.”
I always thought the “children” argument is the most illogical one, especially considering America’s birthrate is either holding steady or declining. If marriage was truly about children, our country would be seeing birth rates equal to those of the Middle East or Africa.
I assume this decision will be overturned. Other courts have dismissed children as a consideration since every possible marriage does not always result in marriage. The courts will make up whatever rule they need to fit their definition of marriage. It is ridiculous because it lacks common sense. Marriage is between a man and a woman and this was evident for thousands of years. Nonetheless, we can create new laws to allow gay marriage so why must the courts decide this every single time? I guess there is always the full credit clause and contract law and everything else we can extend to make marriage available for all. Yet it is fishly because no one ever holds a woman to the letter of a marriage contract. We now have no-fault divorce, which tell you it is a contract of no consequence except to men.
Maybe the Koch brothers would sponsor one of us for a speaking tour. We can talk about all our lousy leftist boyfriends and how we don’t want to have to pay alimony for them. I even slept with a guy for over 8 months before he said he didn’t believe in guns.
Another ruling today. . .
Writing for a unanimous three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Judge Richard Posner put the case for equality starkly. “Homosexuals are among the most stigmatized, misunderstood, and discriminated-against minorities,” he wrote. Denying them the freedom to marry imposes “continuing pain,” he said, and claims that allowing same-sex marriage would harm heterosexual unions or children, or other state interests, were “totally implausible.”
“Our pair of cases is rich in detail but ultimately straightforward to decide,” Judge Posner wrote in the decision striking down bans in Wisconsin and Indiana.
“The challenged laws discriminate against a minority defined by an immutable characteristic, and the only rationale that the states put forth with any conviction — that same-sex couples and their children don’t need marriage because same-sex couples can’t produce children, intended or unintended — is so full of holes that it cannot be taken seriously.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/opinion/a-blunt-defense-of-marriage-equality.html?_r
Posner was always the intelligent one. It’s too bad Dumbya picked Alito instead of him to replace O’Connor.
I’m just waiting–for the entertainment value, not for my interest–for the first state to allow polygamy.
I think the argument that children deserve the opportunity to be linked to their biological parents is a decent argument. The argument that the purpose of marriage is to have children falls a bit flat.
The difference, Kevin, is that it isn’t blood that makes a family. It’s love and raising the children right that make a family.
To rephrase ol cut and paste’s copy of Posner…
“
HomosexualsPaedophiles are among the most stigmatized, misunderstood, and discriminated-against minorities,” he wrote. Denying them the freedom to marry imposes “continuing pain,” he said, and claims that allowing same-sex marriage would harm heterosexual unions or children, or other state interests, were “totally implausible.”After all, age of consent laws are arbitrary and impose ‘continuing pain’ right?