These arguments are not those of serious people. Though it seems almost unnecessary to explain, here are the reasons why. Even assuming the state has a legitimate interest in promoting procreation, the Court fails to see, and Defendant never explains, how the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage has any effect whatsoever on procreation among heterosexual spouses. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not change the number of heterosexual couples who choose to get married, the number who choose to have children, or the number of children they have…
The state’s attempts to connect the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage to its interest in economic stability and in “ensuring humanity’s continued existence” are at best illogical and even bewildering.
As I have said many times, I believe gay people should be allowed to get married. But I also disagree with resolving the issue through the courts — and I don’t believe in being snide or dismissive about the views of people who disagree with me. Here’s one federal judge who is perfectly happy with being snide and dismissive.
Add it to the pile.
Once again, we are relying on judges instead of relying on society changing its views — something that is happening anyway. I wish judges would get out of the way and let society handle its own issues.