Friday, July 14, 2006

 

wha...?

following a new york court decision upholding a ban on same-sex marriages, an op-ed in the times explains the rationale...

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.”

seriously? did they just say that gays don't need marriage because they're more responsible at parenting than straight people are???

full article, by kenji yoshino, here.

Comments:
if you subscribe to the version of logic that the legislative branch (and most of the christian right) uses, that totally makes sense.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?