JUDGE WILLIAMS: Okay, then are you saying same-sex couples cannot successfully raise children?
FISHER: Absolutely not.
JUDGE WILLIAMS: Well, if Indiana's law is about successfully raising children and you agree same-sex couples can successfully raise children, why shouldn't the ban lifted as to them?
FISHER: I think the assumption is that with opposite-sex couples there is very little thought given during the sexual act, sometimes, to whether babies may be a consequence.
JUDGE WILLIAMS: So because gay and homosexual couples actually choose to be parents, choose to take on that obligation, that difference of choice is — you're, you're setting that up differently than accidental. So I mean, here are people who want to have children, know they want to have children, it is not accidental, they make that commitment to raise the children. I just don't get that, it's another aspect of what Judge Posner is raising.
FISHER: And I think the working assumption there, your honor, is that, in that circumstance, the state doesn't need to nudge those couples to stay together. There already is that working understanding. With opposite-sex couples it may be a fleeting moment of passion that leads to a child and that's what we're trying to address, trying to deal with the consequences.
So even though marriage is (in the Official State of Indiana court position) all about the successful raising of kids, gay couples don't need marriage and all its benefits because, well, they end up with kids intentionally, so they've already thought it through and know what to expect and commit to as a couple. Whereas we flighty, thoughtless, love-em-and-leave-em straights, well, we need to be "nudged" into becoming a formal couple and support system for the children we spawn from our "fleeting moment of passion."
And that's apparently the state's argument: straights are creatures of irresponsible passion, so the state has to encourage them to be responsible; gays are thoughtful and deliberate in starting a family, so they don't need any marriage-related incentives to be good parents.
That's a rather ironic turn-around in justifying discrimination.
Embedded Link
Federal Judge Appointed By Ronald Reagan Shreds Indiana’s Lawyer During Oral Arguments About Indiana’s Gay Marriage Ban
You’ll want to listen to Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher try to defend Indiana’s ban on same-sex marriage before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals…
oh WOW. That's amazing.
smh
Cue fuliminating preacher: "Those evil heterosexuals and their thoughtless, fleshly lifestyle! The state must show them the right way to behave, and encourage them to turn from selfishness sin and be as thoughtful and considerate as homosexuals."
I think that might be some of the most sound rhetoric I've heard in a while. I am now frightened…
Well, they can't use religion, tradition, or moral disapproval as valid arguments, so the arguments they are left with get really bizarre really quickly.
Utah is actually arguing that since they are allowed to promote racial diversity at universities, they should be allowed to promote gender diversity in marriages.
+Rick Gary Yeah, but then excluding a particular class of individuals in favor of such diversity would seem to violate federal and SCOTUS rulings against Affirmative Action …
(Though I have to say, that's an even crazier argument.)
You'd also have to show a compelling state interest in doing so, which has sort of been a failure in the "you need a man and a woman to raise a child, because reasons" arguments put forward previously.
Right, +Dave Hill It would be analogous to saying, for the sake of diversity, Utah won't recognize the college degrees of white people or marriages between people of the same race.
So the only people who should marry are those who don't use protection during recreational sex? Sounds like marriage should be mandatory if the woman becomes pregnant.
+Scott Randel Not surprisingly, some people think that should actually be the case. In fact, accepting the state's argument would be foundation for supporting such a further law.
We need to give licenses for procreation, like driving. In fact, you should have to prove your parenting skill through testing before… They really didn't think this through.
No children at all if we do that Suzanne 🙂
+Suzanne Stewart There are times I'm tempted by such an idea. Then I think of how easily such licensing / testing could be abused by an oppressive regime or an intolerant majority.