Wednesday, July 26, 2006

Surprisingly, "Say WA" is NOT the dumbest idea to come out of Washington State

Though I'm not surprised, I'm disappointed in the State Supreme Court's decision to uphold the gay-marriage ban. The decision itself is frustrating, but it would be easier to swallow if the argument behind it weren't so ridiculously asinine:

"Writing for a 5-4 majority, Justice Barbara Madsen said the state's Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and woman, is constitutional because it furthers the state's interest of stable, child-producing unions."

Let's set aside for a moment the fact that there are many, many heterosexual couples who marry with no intent of ever producing off-spring. Or the fact that marriage is certainly not a necessary ingredient in the batter that ultimately bakes a child. It's not like people get married because otherwise they wouldn't be allowed to procreate. And, really, with the divorce rate being what it is, who in their right mind would even think to imply that heterosexual marriages produce stable unions, child-producing or not?

But here. Here's the real kicker:

"The Legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to the survival of the human race," Madsen wrote.

Right. Because if gay people are allowed to marry, wombs will spontaneously evaporate from the abdominal cavities of heterosexual women everywhere.


Angry Dissenter said...

Drat. The Washington Supreme Court is onto us.

Oh well. Back to destroying the American family.

Maria said...

Who the hell wants to get married anyway??? I don't recommend it. Live, love, be happy and keep the courts out of it!!

Anonymous said...

Barbara Madsen is a genious. Thank god there are people out there who try and uphold the moral fabric upon which this country was built.

Related Posts Widget for Blogs by LinkWithin

Made by Lena