Judge Smith's decision posited two major reasons to "rationally support" the ban on gay marriage -- both of them grounded in the assumption, which I share, that marriage is important to the welfare of children.
Actually the judge cited many incidental reasons that "rationally support" marriage as it is and always has been understood. Including one if not the only primary rational based reason that homosexual couplings do not nor can not aspire too -procreation...
Creating children is a far different vocation than that of raising children...
Why should marriage and with it the societal accommodation and privilege be limited to only heterosexual couples that wish to marry?
Simply put, because society has decided so. As evidenced in tradition, conventional wisdom, common law, and enacted law. Society -the people through elected representatives, in legislative bodies have enacted legislation that is premised alone upon the rational basis of procreation -society has decided such... Unlike those arguing for a leftist utopian socialist village ideology would suggest, marriage has never been accommodated, merited privilege, and rewarded simply to foster and promote love or even monogamous sex...
Incidental exceptions, e.g. couples who choose to contracept, do not negate the basis, they test it and in doing so clearly contrast against and specifically identify the basis that some attempt to deny as one very much existing and relevant. Case in point, Griswold v. Connecticut where premised upon a right to privacy it was decided that individuals have the right NOT to procreate via use of contraceptives...
One can clearly see that with Griswold it is that contrasted with the exception that demonstrates clearly the rule, the rational basis of procreation exists!
Regardless a legislature has not chosen to handle exceptions to the basis, e.g. those that choose to contracept, exceptionally by incorporating more rules or by changing totally the basis or doing away with ANY marital accommodation -that is their prerogative, not something for the courts to decide.
Again, as evidenced in Griswold v. Connecticut, there is no supposed heterosexual (or homosexual) right to be accommodated and rewarded by society for entering into non-procreative marriage -such marriages are exceptions incidental to the basis of procreation with such incidence being premised in the right to privacy (just as abortion is). Unlike privacy, marital accommodation, subsidy, and reward is a societal privilege premised upon legitimate and rationally based societal discrimination -marital accommodation, subsidy, and reward is NOT a right...
It is only by illegitimately ignoring the rational basis of procreation - illegitimately conflating the right to privacy (which prohibits the State from enforcing procreation) with the privilege accorded marriage (rationally based in procreation as provided for legislatively by the State) that one can even attempt to argue the ability to choose to engage in homosexual sex with another as something that merits anything from society.
In essence, homosexuals do not get a "free pass" under the privacy right like non-procreative heterosexuals do BECAUSE homosexuals objectively can not possibly ever procreate homosexually...
The ability to procreate and the possibility of procreation -something two homosexuals can not do no matter how much they try...
Some may argue -but what of no-fault divorce laws? Did not the "procreative position" as to rational basis lose most of its force in the 1970's when almost every state passed no-fault divorce statutes?
The legal impact of no-fault divorce laws could be argued both ways and I would suggest that in resolving apparent contradictions between the two ways one would necessarily find the truth as to just what the continued rational basis premising accommodation and privilege of heterosexual marriage was and even more so is now as evidenced by direct correlation to continued societal accommodation and privilege.
e.g. no fault divorce simply is an admission that love can not be legislated and as such is by default not a rational basis premising ANY accommodation and privilege (therefore promoting love via homosexual marriage is a non-starter)...
e.g. no fault divorce simply is an admission that keeping a couple together in the interest of raising children can not be legislated and as such is by default not a rational basis premising ANY accommodation and privilege (therefore promoting raising of children via homosexual marriage is a non-starter)...
IF society has not and does not reward love and child rearing with the benefits reserved marital privilege then what is the rational basis? -- The answer is obvious --PROCREATION
Fast and furious, isn't it?
Have you see wagglebee around lately?