Washington State thwarted the gay rights movement this week when the Supreme Court upheld the ban on gay marriage on Wednesday (July 26). The move came as a shock for many proponents of gay marriage who felt the generally liberal-leaning state would be a possibly ally to their movement. Instead, the court said lawmakers had the power to define marriage by the 1998 Defense of Marriage Act, which says only a man and a woman may marry. Writing in support of the 5-to-4 decision, Justice Barbara Madsen said that the state’s marriage law was enacted to “promote procreation and to encourage stable families.” Now Massachusetts remains the only state that allows same-sex marriages after New York’s high court upheld the law against gay marriage earlier this month.
Here’s what the people are saying:
“The best thing we can do is to simply live our lives proudly and with dignity each and every day. That is our ultimate triumph. I agree with Patricia; it is clear that many judges are uncomfortable on a personal level with same-sex marriage, so they have to find a reason to rule against it. The ‘best for children’ argument is what they seem to latch onto these days. But it isn’t logical.” — Anonymous, waynebesen.com
“This marriage equals procreation argument is just silly. Reserve marriage only for people with kids and once you have kids with someone, you are de facto married to them. You’re already legally tied to the person you have kids with. You can already be sued for palimony. Just call it marriage. IF that’s what marriage is really about.” — Epiphany, anklebitingpundits.com
“Remember that the court was not endorsing heterosexual unions over same sex unions. It was simply, and effectively, doing its job by showing the proper deference to the legislative branch of the government rather than legislating from the bench.” — thehounds.blogspot.com
“Okay, so it looks like the general belief that same-sex marriages in Washington should not be allowed is primarily for the sake of the children. Or, more accurately, because the gays can’t have children. So, I would like to put to a vote the legality of all marriages in which the couples cannot, or do not, procreate. Let me list a few: Elderly couples, couples who choose not to have children, impotent men, barren women, women who have had hysterectomies…I suppose I could go on and on.” — blog.davedodge.net
Talk: What do you think about Washington State’s procreation-based argument for banning gay marriage? COMMENT
On the Web: courts.wa.gov