July 29th, 2006


it is to boggle

For the sake of my blood pressure I have been avoiding the news on this other than following the headlines. But I happened to pick up a paper over breakfast this morning that reported the tidbit below. I had to go to the original decision to check the wording, and sure enough.

From the Washington Supreme Court ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act:

Therefore, we apply the highly deferential rational basis standard of review to the legislature's decision that only opposite-sex couples are entitled to civil marriage in this state. Under this standard, DOMA is constitutional because the legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children's biological parents. [Emphasis mine.]

I don't know about the "highly deferential rational basis" standard, but I do know that marriage and procreation have little or no causal effect on each other, in the sense of survival of a species. Or do the legislature and the courts know something I don't? Are there teams of busy ministers and justices of the peace dashing about, joining moose to moose in holy matrimony? canyonwren, are the queens and toms at your folk's cattery lawfully wedded to each other, and does it make a difference in the viability of the offspring? I knew the wedding industry was booming - no wonder!