Why Not Gay Marriage?
Some casual observations by a 3rd-year Law Student

What follows is a brief rundown of arguments the Courts and legislators have made against same-sex marriage...and why they are groundless, meritless, and hypocritical, i.e., blatantly, incredibly stupid.

The Procreation Argument, stating that the purpose of marriage is to procreate and therefore requires a union of opposite sexes:

Shall we then disallow marriage licenses to couples where one or both partners are infertile? Why are those straight couples permitted to marry, when the most they can do is adopt children? (Gay couples as well as straight couples are able to adopt. Moreover, they are, on average, better educated and have higher incomes than non-gays, meaning they are financially better able to provide for a child.)

The Problem of Determining Who Is the Legal Parent Argument:

Lord Mansfield's rule presumes that children born by a woman during her marriage are a product of the marriage, for legal purposes. If, in a lesbian couple, one woman becomes impregnated while married to another woman, the female couple would automatically be the parents. In a couple of two men, they can adopt, or petition for custody...just like the 50% of straight couples who divorce.

The Historical Tradition Argument:

One oft-quoted court said, "The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis." (In Re Estate of Cooper, 592 NYS.2d 797). Guess what? So is homosexuality. This was first written in 1942, yet was quoted in a 1993 opinion. It is considered bad form to quote cases more than 10 or 15 years old, particularly when the political and social climate is always changing, and new attitudes prevail. Yet, for some reason, the Courts have no problem doing it here.

The Defense of Marriage Act:

Designed to pre-empt the anticipated decision supporting gay marriage by the Hawaii Supreme Court in Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44 (Haw. 1993), the validity of this legislation can be timed with a stopwatch if Hawaii decides to support gay marriage. The full faith & credit clause in the US Constitution is interpreted to mean that states must honor marriages performed in other states. Even marriages performed overseas are recognized here. While Bowers v. Hardwick (478 US 186, 1986) said that there is no fundamental right to homosexual activity, it is well-settled that there IS a fundamental right to travel. If same-sex couples cannot have the same set of rights in one state as they did in Hawaii, would that not arguably be restricting their right to travel?

The "No Compelling State Interest" Argument:

For legislation to withstand a constitutional challenge, there must be a compelling state interest for the legislation. With diseases like AIDS and other STD's rampant, wouldn't there be a compelling state interest in promoting monogamy via marriage? Or do they believe that marriage does NOT promote monogamy?? I'd like to hear THAT argument.

Is There an Even more sinister agenda by the right wing? If it is true that other states will not honor same-sex marriage, will not the gay population end up concentrated in Hawaii, away from the mainstream, and out of the right-wing's hair? The answer is no, because...we are already everywhere.

Some of us already ARE in marriages of which the right-wing approves...and have children from those marriages...but it still doesn't erase who we are. Nor does it make us any different, except cosmetically, from the many loving families headed by two parents of the same sex, who work, pay taxes, pay mortgages and pay for child care expenses. And who also, by the way, worry about their children doing well in school, and worry about keeping them away from drugs and other bad influences. Are we really so different? Should the law continue to treat us that way?

Contributed anonymously.