September 19, 2007
a civil wrong.
Posted by almostmagic under being queer, gay marriage, heterocentricity, heterosexual privilegeNo Comments
Maryland is officially against gay marriage now. I read that article in the paper today, and did it ever get me riled up.
To summarize, basically a group of gay people filed a lawsuit to legalize gay marriage in MD. The Court of Appeals denied them, ruling that, “limiting marriage to a man and a woman does not discriminate against gay couples or deny them constitutional rights. Although the judges acknowledged that gay men and lesbians have been targets of discrimination, they said the prohibition on same-sex marriage promotes the state’s interest in heterosexual marriage as a means of having and protecting children.”
Marriage as a means of having children? Wha-huh? Funny, I thought things like sexual intercourse or artificial insemination were the “means” of having children. What the hell is the “state’s interest” in procreation anyway? If anything, they ought to be discouraging people from reproducing - or have the courts not yet heard of overpopulation? Just drive through Annapolis at lunchtime and it’s not hard to figure out that there are way too damn many people in this state already.
The whole thing is completely fucking ridiculous. According to their screwy logic, infertile people, old people, and people who don’t want kids should be legally banned from getting hitched too.
And then there’s always the guy who says, “Our argument is… to protect marriage.” Protect it from what?! And the bit in the ruling about protecting children - yeah, right. Seems to me that straight people aren’t doing so great with that stuff themselves, what with astronomical divorce rates, oodles of single parents abandoned by their partners, abusive spouses/parents… why and how could gay people make it any worse? Hello, a person being queer doesn’t keep them from being just as capable of love and commitment as anyone else. Which shouldn’t be relevant to the courts in any case. It’s a rights issue, not character analysis (which wouldn’t help the heterocentrics’ case anyway).
How are they defining “man and woman” anyway…