I'm pretty sure this doesn't really fall under any of the categories I usually talk about, and I'm also jumping on the bandwagon a little late, but last week I read about recent developments in the same-sex marriage debate and found a lot of it interesting.
So two weeks ago the New York Supreme Court ruled that a legislative ban on same-sex marriages does not violate the state constitution. The judges offered two arguments. One being the "role model" angle, stating that children are best raised by a man and a woman. The second is what is now referred to as the "reckless procreation" rule.
Kenji Yoshino, in an excellent op-ed piece for the New York Times, first uses actual evidence (imagine that!) to deflate the "role model" argument and then goes on to explain the "reckless procreation" approach.
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.”
To shore up those rickety heterosexual arrangements, “the Legislature could rationally offer the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples only.” Lest we miss the inversion of stereotypes about gay relationships here, the opinion lamented that straight relationships are “all too often casual or temporary.”
First, as Dan Savage pointed out in an earlier New York Times piece, what does having children have anything to do with whether or not gay couples can marry? There are plenty of straight couples who get married without the intention or ability to have kids. Having children is not required for a marriage license.
Second, isn't this ruling insulting to both gays
and straights? I picture the NY Supreme court as this condescending teacher patting the heads of all the straight-A gay students, saying "Gays, since you're all so devoted to your kids anyway, you don't need our help, right?" And then turning to the straights wearing dunce caps in the corner, snapping "Straights, you're too stupid to figure this out on your own. At least get married so you can do something right for your kids, because you obviously can't be trusted to do anything right on your own."
Third, does this mean that straight couples that go to the same lengths as gay couples to have children - adoption, artificial insemination - will also be unable to marry? You know, since they're obviously just as committed as gay parents to providing a stable environment for children and therefore don't need the stabilizing effects of marriage? Will they be deprived of a marriage license?
I love how apparently gay couples have become such beacons of parenting in the eyes of these judges (actually, to judges in Indiana, New York City
and New York state), to the point where their abilities are so above and beyond that of straight parents they apparently don't need any governmental support at all. Well, isn't that flattering? Gosh, I guess a legislative bitch-slap doesn't sting as much when it's preceded by a hug.
And, oh yeah, if straight couples do need all that help, then fine. But, again, why do we need to deprive gay couples of the right to marry for straight couples to benefit from it? Wouldn't straight couples supposedly benefit from marriage even if gay couples could also marry?
The funny part? Where straight relationships are described as "all too often casual or temporary." Translation: "breeders, you're all a bunch of whores." (Which is true. You all are.)
The best part of the column is the fact that it appeared in the paper the same time as a
piece about the hot new gay vacation spots, reminding us, yet again, that everyone can accept a friendly gay when he's contributing to their economy but God forbid he actually want to partake in the same economic benefits to which he's contributing.
Oh, well. I guess I shouldn't complain too much (but I probably will, anyway), since the House Republicans still can't pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Ha ha. Losers. The Republicans on the state level, on the other hand,
are a little more succesful. Curse you, Tennessee, Nebraska and Georgia!
You should read about the House
debate anyway. It's actually a funny break between all the Lebanon tragedies. Some highlights:
The Democrats accused Republicans of raising the issue even as they ignored what the Democrats said were more pressing problems, including the war in Iraq, an expanding conflict in the Middle East, high gasoline prices and North Korean missile tests.
Another Georgia Republican, Representative Phil Gingrey, said support for traditional marriage “is perhaps the best message we can give to the Middle East and all the trouble they’re having over there right now.”
Yeah, that really is the best message. Forget peace or gender equality or religious tolerance. It's a good thing they see our government denying its citizens civil rights
at the exact same time we're trying to convince them that their governments are oppressive and intolerant and should emulate ours. Oh, thanks for the laughs, Rep. Gingrey.
But the best part is the so-logical-it-almost-hurts-that-some-people-don't-get-it quotes at the end:
“How does the existence of same-sex marriage discourage or retard heterosexual marriage?” asked Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, who is gay, calling it “the most illogical argument I’ve ever heard.”
Mr. Frank and others on the Massachusetts delegation said the state’s social fabric had not unraveled in the two years since its highest court recognized a right to same-sex marriage, a decision that set off a nationwide battle against it.
“It’s had no effect on my marriage,” said Representative Jim McGovern, Democrat of Massachusetts, “except we get invited to more weddings.”
Amen.
All right, I'm done ranting. I'll get back to our regularly scheduled programming of trivial updates on Jessica Simpson's latest turd of a single and why Nutella is crack in a jar.
