It's not an "either/or" situation. Allowing gay marriage won't make straight marriages any less stable. And it's not like only so many couples can marry, not as if each gay marriage prevents a straight marriage.<quoted text>
New legislation found that since NY accepted out of state marriages, they had to accept in-state marriages, in other words,what is below was never declared moot.
HERNANDEZ v.ROBLES, 7 N.Y.3d 338
Court of Appeals of New York.
July 6, 2006.
The critical question is whether a rational legislature could decide that these benefits should be given to members of opposite-sex couples, but not same-sex couples.
The question is not, we emphasize, whether the Legislature must or should continue to limit marriage in this way; of course
the Legislature S359may (subject to the effect of the federal Defense of Marriage Act[Pub. L. 104199, 110 U.S. Stat. 2419])
extend marriage or some or all of its benefits to same-sex couples. We conclude,however, that there are at least two
grounds that rationally support the limitation on marriage that the Legislature has enacted. Others have been advanced, but
we will discuss only these two, both of which are derived from the undisputed assumption that marriage is important to
the welfare of children.
First, the Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in
This is really a non issue. You don't have to be able to produce children in order to marry. Sterile straight marriages are allowed. And allowing gay marriage will not change the fact that some couples will breed, and some won't.Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not. Despite the advances of science, it remains true that the vast majority of children are born as a result of a sexual relationship between a man and a
woman, and the Legislature could find that this will continue to be true.
Sex in the restroom on Greyhound a bus can cause a child to be born...The Legislature could also find that such relationships are all too often casual or temporary. It could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born.
Allowing gay marriage won't prohibit them from doing that.It thus could choose to offer an inducementin the form of marriage and its attendant benefitsto opposite-sex couples who make a solemn,long-term commitment to each other.
From reading this stuff, you'd think people were talking about *replacing* straight marriage with gay marriage.
People marry for all sorts of reasons, not just to breed in a "stable" environment. Considering MOST marriages end in divorce, I don't know if the use of the term "stable" is appropriate.The Legislature could find that this rationale for marriage does not apply with comparable force to same-sex couples.
Non sequitur. The irony is, that in the state of NY, more restrictions are put on married couples who adopt than on single people.There is a second reason: The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children
to grow up with both a mother and a father.
The court illustrates Rose's Law:
Morons with no real argument scream, "But what about the children!?"