Another Defeat For Same-Sex Marriage

On July 26th the Washington Supreme Court upheld the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.

“The Legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to the survival of the human race and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by children’s biological parents,”

Wow. If the purpose of marriage is procreation then couldn’t a state pass a law requiring married couples to have at least one child or a law banning women incapable of conceiving from getting married?

“This is the right thing for our children, families and our communities,” “It is good public policy for the state to encourage marriage between a man and a woman.” - State Senator Val Stevens.

Really? I certainly won’t teach my son that discrimination is right.

Writing Discrimination Into Nebraska's Constitution

The same year Alabama voters decided to erase discrimination from their constitution (see my June 29th post on this subject), Nebraska voters decided to write discrimination into theirs. The 2000 amendment to the Nebraska constitution banned same-sex marriage AND barred same-sex couples from legal protections afforded to heterosexual couples.
On Friday the 8th Circuit Court of Appeal upheld the amendment against a federal constitutional challenge.
That’s not surprising. Although sodomy laws were held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas, I know of only one successful challenge to a law banning same-sex marriage (Mass. Supreme Court).
And Nebraska isn’t alone. Many states have laws banning same-sex marriage and others are working to get such laws on the books. The California Supreme Court heard arguments on California’s discriminatory law last Monday.
This is a battle that has to be fought at the legislative and initiative level. Like all discrimination, it is fought daily in our conversations and interactions with others.