Convoluted Argument of NY Court on Gay Marriage

NY's highest court in its cowardly (essentially, it referred the matter back to the state legislature) decision to maintain the anti-gay marriage stance under NY State law the other day, for one thing 'rationalized' that the state supports the limitation on marriage (to straight persons), because it is derived from the 'undisputed' (their word) assumption (you know what 'they' say about that) that marriage is important to the welfare of children.

Let's look at just this argument of the 'majority' on the court. The court said that marriage should be preserved as an 'inducement' to heterosexual couples to remain in stable, long-term, and child-bearing relationships. The implication being that without such 'inducement', perhaps many straight couples would not marry in the interests of nuturing children that may be conceived, say accidentally or without planning or desire (that many straight couples with children today do not marry has become the rule rather than the exception, state sanction or not). Marriage then with this convoluted logic infers that straight couples, or at least a significant enough portion of them, are not necessarily to be trusted without what tantamounts to a bribe to become responsible parents, in state sanctioned, preferentially treated unions. . .

Well, that said, what about gay persons who wish to maintain a 'marital' arrangement in the specific interests of children for which they have planned and desire to nuture within a stable, loving relationship? Do they not deserve the same support and state sanctioning of those unions, to the added welfare of the children involved- which is the state's interest as defined by the justices themselves?

To this writer it seems the court has ruled that the secular institution of marriage is specifically designed by the state for those not to be trusted otherwise with the responsible nuturing of their children. Whereas, those who have responsibly taken on that the task of raising children within a loving, stable relationship (which again is in the state's interest) are not to be accorded the same incentives and acknowledgement if they happen to be gay.

How's that for unreasonable, legalistic nonsense!

This argument is especially egregious and totally wrongheaded, despite the justices' 'intuition', since the overwhelmingly valid evidence shows that children growing up in gay households are just as happy and well adjusted as those of straight ones.

-click on the title or 'link' to track back to a Democratic Party Blog comment. . .

BLOG ON