Since I mentioned the ruling in favor of gay marriage bans in four states by the Sixth District Circuit Court, I wanted to post the majority opinion in that case, the only sane thing to come out of a court case on this sort of issue in aeons
It is a good ruling actually, even if I think ultimately the decision was wrong, the reasoning is pretty interesting. The bit that is getting quote mined at Christian sites is particularly amusing. The court almost seems to be saying they realize it's absurd:
quote:
So long as judges can conceive of some plausible reason for the lawany
plausible reason, even one that did not motivate the legislators who enacted itthe
law must stand, no matter how unfair, unjust, or unwise the judges may consider it as citizens.
The 'plausible' reason they came up with? Men and women can procreate and marriage is needed to regulate this and decide what happens to the resultant children. Is that true? I don't think so - heterosexual couplings produce children where there is no marriage and the law manages to regulate the dealings here too. But as long as its any 'plausible' reason for the law, right?
quote:
It does not take long to envision problems that might result from an absence of rules about how to handle the natural effect s of male-female intercourse: children. May men and women follow their procreative urges wherever they take them? Who is responsible for the children that result? How many mates may an individual have?
It goes on to talk about how State's don't bother to prevent people marrying dozens of times, sometimes multiple times to the same person over their life. It doesn't stop people from marrying when they have children in another marriage. It doesn't stop friends who want tax benefits from marrying. So, asked the court, how can we deny the claimants?
BECAUSE WE'RE HYPOCRITES
Yup.
quote:
History is replete with examples of love, sex, and marriage tainted by hypocrisy. Without it, half of the world’s literature, and three-quarters of its woe, would disappear.
It acknowledges that a same-sex marriage ban is harmful, but states that it's out of their jurisdiction.
quote:
Yes, we cannot deny thinking the plaintiffs deserve betterearned victories through initiatives and legislation and the greater acceptance that comes with them. But maybe the American people too deserve betternot just in the sense of having a say through representatives in the legislature rather than through representatives in the courts, but also in the sense of having to come face to face with the issue
I have to agree with Faith, this is perhaps one of the best argued verdicts that I disagree with that I have seen. I'm particularly disappointed with the 'any reason' of 'irresponsible procreation'. You can read it
here
Though the dissent has a zinger in it's opening that's worth highlighting:
quote:
The author of the majority opinion has drafted what would make an engrossing TED Talk or, possibly, an introductory lecture in Political Philosophy. But as an appellate court decision, it wholly fails to grapple with the relevant constitutional question in this appeal: whether a state’s constitutional prohibition of same-sex marriage violates
equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
So the question is - if the lower courts really do only have to find 'any reason' for a law to exist, even absurd ones that fly in the face of all reason and justice - then what will the Supreme Court find? Will they agree with the Dissent:
quote:
Proceeding to a legal analysis of the core issue in the litigation, the district court then concluded that the proscriptions of the marriage amendment are not rationally related
to any legitimate state interest. Addressing the defendants’ three asserted rational bases for the amendment, the district court found each such proffered justification without merit.
Principally, the court determined that the amendment is in no way related to the asserted
state interest in ensuring an optimal environment for child-rearing.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
