Washington State is looking hard right now at marriage. Currently, only a man and a woman can be legally married. Same sex marriages are not recognized unions. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) assures this.
This is being challenged in the Washington State Supreme Court.
Inside the Temple of Justice, religious arguments are not relevant. “God Hates Fags” is not a valid argument. There must exist a “compelling state interest” in denying citizens a right or benefit shared widely and freely by other people.
Almost half of heterosexual marriages end in divorce. Divorce rates amongst Christian conservatives is higher than divorce rates amongst liberal athiests. Obviously the religious argument basis is not relevant, even when looked at quasi-logically.
Massachusettes, a liberal state, and the only state in the US where gay marriage is legal, has the lowest divorce rate in the country.
The ten states with the highest divorce rates are all conservative states.
So what are the lawyers in favour of the ban on gay marriage presenting to the Court as their basis for a “compelling state interest” to continue this ban?
Well, it’s not love. Love does not define marriage for these people.
Children may result from heterosexual intercourse, and society needs a way of coping with this. That is marriage. It is in the best interest of the State.
When this definition was presented, a Justice asked if the State should compel heterosexual couples who conceive a child to marry.
So the argument to keep a man from marrying the man he loves, or a woman from marrying the woman she wants to spend her life with is:
Marriage exists to keep stupid and irresponsible heterosexuals from abandoning their children.
Talk about non-sequitur.
I have seen heterosexual marriages like this, where people are bound, unhappy, and slowly dying. This is not a good definition for marriage for anyone, gay or straight. Nobody wins, not even the kids who are supposed to be protected by this binding force.
Marriage requires honesty, love and compassion above all else.
It seems more than a little silly trying to define marriage in courts. But I suppose it’s necessary if you want to deny someone the right to have honesty, love and compassion with the person they would have as their spouse.
Dan Savage has a great article at The Stranger about this issue.
And best wishes to Amy and Jarreau in their lives together, whose love, mutual understanding and compassion will be made more tangible for all, including themselves, at their upcoming marriage ceremony. They do not have to get married. Neither one is pregnant. They’re certainly not doing it for “show” – to wear the face of having a husband or wife. They can’t even legally get married! Yet they’re doing it. How much more, in the name of love, could you possibly say?
These people who claim they speak for the God of boundless love and compassion have no conception of the black depths of their inner deception.