|
By that logic the state should give everybody a welfare check and not just poor people since everybody could always use more money.
The postulation is that gay people are already disposed towards having children only when they are in a stable relationship (there should be no such thing as an accidental unwanted pregnancy for homosexuals and why would they choose to have a baby in unstable conditions is the thinking, I suppose).
No matter how irresponsible the homosexual sex you get no unwanted and unplanned babies. This isn't true of heterosexual sex. If the goal is simply to encourage people to wait until they are in stable secure relationships to have children then marriage doesn't provide much incentive for gay people as they are likely already waiting for stable secure relationships before going to the hassle of arranging to have a child.
Since heterosexual sex carries risks that are not present in homosexual sex could not the state rationally decide that encouraging homosexuals to limit sex to a single partner would not serve a goal accomplished in encouraging heterosexuals to limit sex to a single partner.
If the state interest is in affecting precreational behavior then it makes some sense to exclude homosexuals.
I don't really endorse that but all the court is saying is that "since the state can make an argument for this exlusion that relies on more than just 'ew, gay is yucky' it isn't our place to dictate legislative priorities."
That's why I would like to see reasoning made explicit. The court is postulating rational justifications. I think they should force the state to play its hands so everybody knows which justifications provide the purpose for the statute. In 1909 "that's just the way it is" was sufficient for this issue. In this ruling the court says that is no longer an acceptable justification. I would have preferred the court said something like "unless the state legislature provides rational justification for the existing law we'll have to assume there is no rational underpinning and overrule."
Then the state would say for reasons A, B, and C we do not allow homosexual marriage and then the pro-marriage could begin work on showing why A, B, and C are no longer valid considerations.
|