By a 4-1 majority, the appellate panel not only rejected the lower court’s ruling that state law forbidding same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, but said that the state had a legitimate and rational interest in promoting heterosexual marriage.
But apparently that doesn’t include my type of heterosexual marriage.
“Marriage promotes sharing of resources between men, women and the children that they procreate,” said the panel of the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court. “It is based on the presumption that the optimal situation for child-rearing is having both biological parents present in a committed, socially esteemed relationship.”
So as a non-procreating heterosexual I guess I’m not quite the ideal. I’m non-procreating by choice so I’m not totally offended. If I wanted biological kids but was infertile that could be pretty offensive. Love the emphasis on ‘biological’ parents in the last sentence. I guess even if I adopt that will still make my marriage not quite good enough.
I also found the wording of the decision.
Oh, my god. I’ve been trying to read it. I’m not a lawyer so I get lost sometimes but it is definately raising my blood pressure. Here are some highlights:
Finally, the lower court accepted plaintiffs’ claim that the marriage statutes discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Reserving marriage to opposite-sex couples, however, does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Homosexuals may marry persons of the opposite sex,
and heterosexuals may not marry persons of the same sex.
…..I recognize that New York’s statutory scheme of reserving marriage to opposite-sex couples may have a greater impact upon homosexuals than heterosexuals.
May have a greater impact on homosexuals than heterosexuals? You think?
The motion court denied that marriage, as the union of man and woman, uniquely involves the procreation and raising of children. The court observed that “the long-term union of a man and a woman is no longer the only familial context for raising children.” The court noted that lesbians may conceive through artificial insemination and that, under New York law, both gays and lesbians may adopt children, individually, jointly or as second parents in a same-sex relationship. These observations, however, do not recognize the key difference between how most opposite-sex couples become parents, through sexual intercourse, and how all same-sex couples must become parents, through adoption and assisted reproduction. Morrison v. Sadler, 821 N.E.2d 15, 24 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
Becoming a parent by using “artificial” reproduction methods is frequently costly and time-consuming. Adopting children is much the same. Those persons wanting to have children by assisted reproduction or adoption are, by necessity, heavily invested, financially and emotionally, in those processes. Those processes also require a great deal of foresight and planning. “Natural” procreation, on the other hand, may occur only between opposite-sex couples and with no foresight or planning. All that is required is one instance of sexual intercourse with a man for a woman to become pregnant. Id. (footnote omitted).
If I’m reading this right the court is basically saying that people who adopt or have assisted reproduction are more prepared and committed to the children that they have. Trey has had a discussion of this recently. It then goes on to say that because heterosexuals get pregnant by accident the fathers aren’t invested. That is why there is a need for marriage. Something has to bind the fathers to the children.
So basically the court is saying that heterosexual men are #$$% who won’t step up and claim responsibility. Ok, I’ll grant them that in some cases. But haven’t we seen that forcing someone to get married because of a pregancy isn’t a sound decision? Either the guy is going to take responsibility or he isn’t. A forced marriage doesn’t change that. Apparently the appellate court has a very low opinion of men.