Tuesday, June 21, 2005


Since when did procreation require government endorsement?

After the death of his wife, to whom he'd been married for more than 50 years, my wonderful father-in-law remarried. Two friends, who'd been more or less together for 17 years, up and married in their middle years. My sister married a man who'd already had one family and wasn't interested in starting another. One friend never found the right man — until well into her 40s. My wife and I, married 30 years and counting, stopped after one child.

Marriage is not just about procreation or raising children. It's not. And you know it.

But Rick Scarborough sees it differently in his "Action Alert."

Its [sic] encouraging that there are still some judges who adhere to the law, instead of using it as an excuse to impose their views on society. Last week, there we [sic] two heartening rulings on marriage, from opposite ends of the country.

In California, U.S. District Court Judge Gary Taylor upheld Section 3 of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Taylor said Section 3 is constitutional, in that it passes the "rational basis test".

Specifically, the court noted, "because procreation is necessary to perpetuate humankind, encouraging the optimal union for procreation is a legitimate government interest. By excluding same-sex couples from the federal rights and responsibilities of marriage, and by providing those rights and responsibilities only to people in opposite-sex marriages, the government is communicating to citizens that opposite-sex relationships have special significance". This is a most welcome affirmation of marriage.

Gaw-lee Andy, how do you s'pose humankind made it this far, without gummint communicatin' that opposite-sex relationships have special significance? I thought it was just the devil that was givin' me them ideas. Now that I know the gummint endorses ficky-fick visa vis a man and a woman, I'ma throwin' out that embryo adoption brochure and doin' it like god intended!

Or as reported in the Free Republic: "To say it would encourage procreation for heterosexual couples by denying same-sex couples the right to marry is illogical," said Jennifer Pizer, senior counsel for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. "It's a mistake to think that denying marriage to same-sex couples has any effect on whether heterosexual couples have children and raise those children well."

At the same time, [Dr. Rick continues] the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court affirmed a trial court ruling that limiting marriage to members of the opposite sex does not violate the state's constitution. The court observed that if restricting marriage to a man and a woman is discriminatory (as plaintiffs maintained), the same could be said of laws prohibiting polygamy.

The majority went further, taking a swipe at their activist colleagues, writing: "The personal views of the members of the court concerning the wisdom of a statute should play no part in determining its constitutionality. A constitution is not simply an empty receptacle into which judges may pour their own conceptions of evolving social mores". (emphasis added)

We can be grateful that some judges still understand the proper role of the judiciary.

Now, the way I read that one, if restricting colleges to white people is discriminatory, why, the same could be said about laws prohibiting dragging black people behind your pickup. Well, I think that's what it means, but I may just be pouring my own conception into it.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home