[Ghoulish Delight]

Yeah, I followed their reasoning...I'm just disappointed by it. I mean, I'd be right there with them if the aim of the suit were to remove the institution of marriage all together due to claimed discrimination. But expanding who is allowed to get married does not diminish the stated "rational basis" for marriage. It still remains an incentive for heterosexual couples to get married and, considering that, married or not, same-sex couples can adopt, the "better for children" argument doesn't seem to hold much water. So, imho, since the only thing that would be different between upholding the current language of the Domestic Relations law and not upholding it is that a class of citizens is denied equal protection. Allowing that equal access does not invalidate either of the two stated rationalizations.

I understand that the court wasn't claiming that those reasons were good reasons, just that they were logical reasons stemming not from discriminatory aims (though I might argue on that point regarding the second reason). And I will certainly be glad should this result in a legislative change. But I think it sets (or perpetuates?) an unfortunate precident of "well, it's always been like this, and they didn't mean anything by it, so it's not discrimination."