She wrote that there was no proof the DOMA provision was “rationally related to a legitimate government interest.”
.
The proof is there...you just refuse to acknowlege it.
Having children raised in a heterosexual modeled family IS the government interest.
The government today is more interested in placing somebody else’s kids in homes like the one this judge rules.
> Having children raised in a heterosexual modeled family IS the government interest.
Yep.
It is also in the state interest to have males restrained by female companions, to have women protected and nurtured by a male provider and protector, to have women protected from the whims of men, to have stable, long-term households, to have large numbers of children, and to have these children turn out to be healthy.
We would be well-served as a nation to stop and consider why the nation-state and civilized societies created the odd institution of marriage in the first place, and placed the limitations and demands on it that it did.
To put it another way, we should ask ourselves why the state created a special (”odd”) form of contract, calling it “marriage,” and imposed on it some particular burdens but also allowed it special privileges. And, it should be noted, made THIRD PARTIES subject to the contract, compelling them to recognize it and give it considerations not given to singular individuals.
Note that any two parties can form a contract between themselves. In this contract, they can promise to be loving, devoted, share wealth, etc. This is perfectly legal and proper today, right now.
We should take note of how a marriage is a special form of this contract.
For that matter, note that any three or twelve or 157 parties can form a contract amongst themselves. These parties can be all male, or all female, or any combination thereof. They can promise to each other to be loving, devoted, etc.
Why didn’t the state allow this in the terms of what it calls marriage? Why didn’t it allow male-male marriages, or female-female-female-male-female marriages?
The state did not create marriage as an act of favor and mushiness towards the loving couple making a commitment to each other.
It did so to compel the male to behave, in return for somewhat regular sex and regular companionship. It did so to protect females from powerful males and husbands. It did so because the state want large numbers of children produced. It demanded that marriages be permanent so that women were protected and nourished, men didn’t run wild, and children were not only plentiful but healthy. And, btw, with these children the state could grow economically and defend itself militarily.
The polygamous marriage does not accomplish these objectives. The same gender marriage does not accomplish these objectives. The adult-child marriage does not accomplish these objectives.
Homosexuals use the black Civil Rights Movement as a point of comparison to their cause. Abraham Lincoln in a debate with Stephen Douglas clarified the issue of racism by comparing a black man and a white man. Clearly, between the two there are differences, but add a dog to the picture and clearly it is the dog who is different.
Do the same with a homosexual couple (or even a single mom) and a heterosexual couple. This is the angle of attack of the Pink Mafia. We’re the same they claim, but add a child to the picture and anyone can see that they’re different. It robs the child to deny a mother or a father and the perspective they give.
Now, lest we lose the argument consider the following without a child. You’re deciding on whether or not someone needs psychological counseling. Here is their symptom - they like to put things in their rectum, as a matter of fact they love it and want it. What’s your diagnosis counselor - sane or insane?