New York ruled that the state constitution does not require that gay marriage be accepted. That may be true, but some of the rationales cited by the decision, at least as quoted by the NY Times, are plain silly:
“There are at least two grounds that rationally support the limitation on marriage that the legislature has enacted,” the court said, “both of which are derived from the undisputed assumption that marriage is important to the welfare of children.”
So children of gay parents would be better off if their parents could marry, right? And since gay marriage does not affect straight unions, those children are just as well off.
First, the court said, marriage could be preserved as an “inducement” to heterosexual couples to remain in stable, long-term, …
Because obviously if gay people get married, straight people will no longer be induced to get married since their families, churches, and friends will no longer put pressure on them, they will cease caring about gift registries, and will be willing to throw out the window the thousands of legal perks that come with marriage.
… and child-bearing relationships.
The next step is to outlaw marriage for infertile couples.
Second, lawmakers could rationally conclude that “it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and the father.”
“Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like,” the court said.
“Intuition” also argued against mixed-race marriages not that long ago. And obviously, a child of gay parents will have no contact with family members, teachers, store clerks, neighbors, or friends of a gender other than that of his or her parents.
