Ellen Goodman in
today's Boston GLOBE hits the nail on the head on the recent marriage rulings in New York and Washington:
NOW I got it. After hours spent poring over Washington state's Supreme Court decision upholding the ban on same-sex marriage, I've finally figured it out. The court wasn't just ruling against same-sex marriage. It was ruling in favor of ``procreationist marriage."
(snip)
Well if that's true, isn't it time for the legislatures in Washington and in New York, which issued a similar ruling against same-sex marriage this summer, to follow their own logic? If marriage is for procreation, shouldn't they refuse to wed anyone past menopause? Shouldn't they withhold a license, let alone blessings and benefits, from anyone who is infertile? What about those who choose to be childless? Nothing borrowed or blue for them. Indeed the state could offer young couples licenses with sunset clauses. After five years they have to put up (kids) or split up.
While I usually leave the legal analysis of court rulings to my husband even I could figure this one out. If they're allowing opposite sex couples who have no desire, whether by choice or biology, to get married there is no rational reason to ban same sex couples the same rights especially when many same sex couples have children.
10 comments:
Ellen may not be the most beloved columnist in America, but it is heartening to see more and more editorial writers and columnists noting this on both coasts.
Ah, but you have to remember the story of Sarah in the Bible, who had a baby at age 80! After a lifetime of infertiltiy - and no drugs!
I just wish the Legislature trusted the electorate enough to allow them to vote - after all, those are the folks that put them there.
At least in Washington (though I don't remember this being mentioned in this way in NY) the court said that underinclusiveness (that glbt couples have kids) and overinclusiveness (married infertile etc. hetero couples) does not render a provision unconsitutional, under Washington caselaw.
Vote on what? Whether married people should be forced to pro-create? Whether to tax Republicans? Whether people they don't like should have rights?
The "let the people vote" argument has got to be one of the most vile distortions the anti-gay contingent has come up with. Well, next to pretending to be historical figues, then putting bullshit in their mouths.
I suppose next we'll be treated to Amy Contrada pretending you're actually ARE Peter P (see Paine, Thomas).
Peter,
Using a name from an early settler to this country I'm surprised that you would raise the Bible as an arugument for a civil case. Marriage by the state has nothing to do with religion. Some religions bless same sex marriages some do not. Now if people were forcing churches to recognizes or perform those marriages that's a horse of a different color.
Bible references have no place in the civil political arena. If it was the next question would be which bible do we use? How would you feel if law based on the Koran were forced upon you?
Can I write my own Bible?
I'll even put a passage in it that my Bible is the ONLY true Bible dictated to me by God via vodka.
Then we can use that one!
I want to be able to vote on whether churches and colleges are tax exempt. And I want to be able to do it on my TV, like the let me do on "American Idol."
Aren't we a democracy? Shouldn't the people be able to vote on everything, whenever we want to?
Dear Brothers and Sisters:
I welcome Ryan's offer to write his own bible.
Before one attempts to translate scripture and add their own interpertation of scripture, one must be fully comfortable with the libation he or she plans to use during this important journey.
I have no problem with Vodka per se.. ( I am a Gin Man myself) But, I can not step forward with a full blessing,unless I know if Ryan plans to use Absolute Vodka, Kettle One, Kosak Vodka or the brand favored by Boston Arch Diocese, Kappy's Generic Brand. ( on special all this week for $14.99 www.Kappys.com)
Go in Peace!
Father Ted.
Sadly our WA governor, a Dem, also fails the logic test. She is using the wobbly 'civil unions for them homos (because we dont discriminate, oh no!), real marriage for we Christians!' line. She won her election by a margin of only 112 or so votes, so I suppose she's appealing to the kinder, gentler Repubs with her stance. But as in MA, I wonder whether this stance really will appeal to anyone. We could easily get into a CA situation here, where the legislature at some point on the geological time scale actually passes a pro-SSM bill (only managed to pass a non-discrimination bill this year), and the gov vetos it. Legis here can't override the gov like there in MA. We have a long road ahead of us. Please send flowers.
What is that with Gov. Gregoire in Washington? She rambles on about being a Catholic and claiming the state didn't marry her and hubby Mike. Of course, the state did. Washington is one of those states like Massachusetts in which marriage has always been a civil contract, approved by the state. The fact that a priest can sign off on the state license doesn't change squat anymore than all the other possible signers would.
Washington is an ideal same-sex marriage state, in large part because there is no muddling of religious ritual in marriage law. You don't have to take the sacrament out of the law. It has never been there.
Maybe someone needs to tell Christine.
Post a Comment