The day I lost complete faith in the law
I’ve been delaying writing this post because it just has me so incredibly mad that I can’t get a handle on myself and organize my thoughts, but the day I lost complete faith in the law was July 6, 2006, also known as the day the New York Court of Appeals issued its ruling on same-sex marriage. That’s it. I’ve had it with these people. They win. I just can’t take lawyers anymore.
I’m not real familiar with the facts of the case, and I sort of lost interest in the opinion after a while because it’s 70 pages all told and I’ve got places to be and pornos to masturbate to (not the two of those at the same time, obviously), but the section that has me irritated, and the only section that anybody is talking about outside of law professors who get positively wet at the mention of procedural frameworks, is the section that says the NY legislature could rationally find that the state’s interest in marriage is predicated on the concern that children who are born out of wedlock have a harder time of it than children who are born within - studies show it!* - so we need to have marriage incentives to get Ma and Pa to stay together should le condom break. But gays don’t run the risk of accidental procreation, so they don’t need no stinking marriage incentives, so they don’t need no stinking marriage. The NY Court of Appeals is Helen Lovejoy, shriekingly beseeching us to "please think of the children!"
* First of all, this is so wrong I just can’t stand it. This is the general marriage incentive argument all over again. Yes, children grow up better in two-parent households…but only when the parents AREN’T FORCED TO MARRY EACH OTHER OUT OF CIRCUMSTANCE. And not to rehash the ole interracial argument, but do you seriously think there aren’t any studies showing that children grow up better in households where the parents are of the same race?
You read something like this, and you just lose all faith in the legal system, to say nothing of your fellow man. It’s amazing just how far over backwards these people are willing to bend so they can keep the queers down; it’s up there with the Ann Coulters trying to convince our children that Creationism is still a viable explanation for the way the world works. And not to change the subject, but where the hell are all the “sanctity of marriage” people on this? Marriage is sacred, so fucking so that it needs to be incentivized. Wow. Sure is special.
Why do we tolerate these people who masquerade their homophobia under these guises of supposed rationality? All these topics: gay marriage, gay adoption, gays in the military. This isn’t about the definition of marriage or the anatomy of the family unit. It’s not about rationality. It’s that some people in our society just don’t like gay people.** Admit it. You just don’t like them. It’s okay. There are some things in this world I don’t like. Like rugburns. They suck. Somebody starts floating around a rugburn marriage amendment, they’ll be hearing from me.
** “I am so off-the-charts tired of the gun lobby tossing around words like 'personal freedom' and no one calling ‘em on it. It's not about personal freedom, and it certainly has nothing to do with public safety. It's just that some people like guns.”
But okay. If the State’s interest in marriage is all about keeping the kid’s parents together, then let’s actually make it about that, you know? Let’s make people submit to fertility tests before they get married, to make sure we don’t have a bad case of “that sperm won’t hunt” on our hands, because otherwise what the hell would we let them get married for? If it’s just about procreation, let’s make it JUST about procreation. In fact, if it's just about the child, then let's prohibit ANYONE from getting married unless they've got a baby on the way. If we’re gonna believe this, let’s actually believe it. If you seriously think the state's interest in marriage is about baby making three, don’t half-ass it. Go the distance. BELIEVE IT. Ban ALL kidless marriages. The commitment can't be that hard, not for something as important as America's children, not for something like the family, that fundamental building block of society. This is why I completely agree with the dissent on the Michigan affirmative action cases. If diversity is so important to student education, let’s really GO for it. Don't make Michigan yet another higher-education bastion of progressive liberalism. Federalist Society, bah! Give me White Supremacist Lawyer and the disciples of Jerry Falwell, all legislating "in the name of the Lord."
What pisses me off the most is the legal blogging community’s response to this. “While I don’t agree with the ruling, I think it’s an interesting argument…” Shut the fuck up. You’re part of the problem. This isn’t a theoretical problem in a poli sci class, this isn’t your Con Law prof asking if you have a constitutional right to subsidized cable. This is people’s lives you’re fucking with. Take it seriously.