The Right Decision?

The Washington State Supreme Court decided today to uphold the state ban on gay marriage. In a 5-4 split, the SC upheld the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) stating that it was constitutional for the state to distinguish between homosexuals and heterosexuals when defining marriage.

I don't know what I think about this quiete yet. Reading the majority opinion of Justice Barbara Madsen, I wasn't convinced of the court's ruling. While I can see where she is coming from, the argument is weak and flawed at best. Citing biological needs and procreation as a supportive statement for marriage is an archaic crutch to lean on, one that has long been abandoned by most anti-gay marriage activists. The other opinion was a bit stronger in my opinion.

The fact of the matter is, if we are coming from that point of view then all impotent, sterilized, or post-menopausal couples should have their marriages absolved due to the fact that they are incapabale of procreation.

The dissent's offered a very solid counter-argument to the illogical belief;

"The plurality and concurrence condone blatant discrimination against Washington's gay and lesbian citizens in the name of encouraging procreation, marriage for individuals in relationships that result in children, and the raising of children in homes headed by opposite-sex parents, while ignoring the fact that denying same-sex couples the right to marry has no prospect of furthering any of those interests."

Regardless, I don't think this was the main point of the argument. Chief Justice Gerry Alexander defined it best when he pointed out that they were not defining the rights of gays, only answering a question of constitutionality and, in essence, deffering back to the legislature, and I have to say, that despite my personal belief in judicial activism and a belief in equality, the courts did the right thing here. It's not the decision I wanted, but their deferral is the judicial and fair thing to do. I only hope that the legislature will get rid of the law soon.


On the other side however, while browsing the comments sections of local newspapers and admiring the complete shitstorm this decision has caused, I stumbled upon a very solid and interesting argument upholding the Supreme Court's decision. It had nothing to do with activism and gay or non-gay rhetoric, but took a look at the DOMA in a way I had never truly understood it. Here's the post, credited to an Michael Class that I found very enlightening;

The dictionary definition of marriage is “the legal union of a man and a woman in order to live together and often to have children.” Source: The 2003 Oxford American Dictionary of Current English. It's been the definition for more than two thousand years.

On September 21, 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act into federal law, with the approval of both houses of the U.S. Congress. The Defense of Marriage Act states: “the word marriage means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word spouse refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”

In the United States, all people are treated equally under the law - all PEOPLE are equal. But all RELATIONSHIPS between people are NOT equal - because all relationships do not provide equal benefits to society. Men and women who decide to marry are afforded special privileges because American society long ago decided that encouraging men and women to have children - and raise them together for the rest of their lives - provides a unique benefit to society. Creating children, especially, is a benefit that can not be provided or duplicated by any other form of relationship.

So, providing special benefits to married men and women is NOT illegal discrimination, nor is it unfair. Illegal discrimination - and unfairness - occurs ONLY when two things that are the SAME are treated DIFFERENTLY. The union of a man and a man (or a woman and a woman) is NOT equal in every way to the union of a man and a woman. The relationships are truly different - so it is entirely fair to accord them different privileges.

Because providing special privileges to men and women who marry is NOT unfair in any way, gay rights activists have devised an UNDERHANDED WAY to acquire the privileges of marriage while circumventing the will of the majority: They seek to change the very definition of marriage, thereby automatically conferring the privileges of marriage on same-sex couples.

In response, almost every state in the union has passed "defense of marriage" laws and amendments - essentially using the law and state constitutions as dictionaries! It's silly that such laws have to be passed and upheld, but they do.

Marriage is “the legal union of a man and a woman in order to live together and often to have children." Because this is different from all other forms of relationship, and provides unique benefits to society, we afford special privileges to men and women who marry. What is so hard to understand?

If gay activists want to be afforded the same privileges as men and woman who marry, then they must convince the majority that their "gay marriage" relationship deserves them.

So far, they haven't. And changing the definition of marriage - treating us all as fools - will not work.

Michael S. Class

www.magicpictureframe.blogspot.com

This period will be remembered in history as another major civil rights battle. I believe the pro-homosexual point of view will win eventually and probably sooner rather than later, at the latest, I feel it will happen with the coming of my generation into power, but it is fascinating to see it develop from the eye of the storm.


What it really comes down to is that this is the decision of the people, not the courts. New York spelled it out best saying that if the law is passed by the legislature, theyll uphold it, but they will not legislate from the bench and while it may slow down the process, it is the correct decision and they are to be commended and respected for it. I only wish WA's opinion didn't have as many missed arguments against it.


Oh well, back to scanning newspaper comment battles for now. Man, I feel bad for the people at the Temple of Justice today...