It's not prejudice, it's "rational."
Jul. 6th, 2006 04:59 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
eruthrosFrom the NY courts document:
"Our conclusion that there is a rational basis for limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples leads us to hold that that limitation is valid under the New York Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, and that any expansion of the traditional definition of marriage should come from the Legislature."
Then they go into a bunch of stuff about Due Process and Equal Protection, but that's not the hinge point, for me. Nor is it the hinge point of the decision. "Rational." That's the word that pisses me off. And it's the basis of their decision: "Where no fundamental right is at issue, legislation is valid under the Due Process Clause if it is rationally related to legitimate government interests." Emphasis mine.
They're not just putting it off on the legislature, not just saying that it's not unconstitutional because of the way the law is written. That would be awful, but wouldn't make me as angry as this does. Because they're saying that there are rational reasons to keep me from getting married.
Those rational reasons appear to be:
1. Opposite-sex couples are more likely to have children accidentally, so we could say that it was valid to reward them for that and that "[the legislature] could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born. It thus could choose to offer an inducement -- in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits -- to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn, long-term commitment to each other." That is, apparently marriage is a bribe to encourage us to have kids, or to make couples who have an unexpected pregnancy stay together. Because the on-purpose pregnancies of same-sex couples don't need encouragement. Or something.
"The Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will
be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples, and thus that promoting stability in opposite sex
relationships will help children more." -- Right. Because prohibiting some parents from getting married will help children "more" than letting all parents form a "stable" relationships. And they don't really address this; they say "Our earlier discussion demonstrates that the
definition of marriage to include only opposite-sex couples is not irrationally underinclusive." That is, it doesn't fail to include same-sex couple with kids for any irrational reason, but for a rational one: bribery.
2. "Plaintiffs seem to assume that they have demonstrated the irrationality of the view that opposite-sex marriages offer advantages to children by showing there is no scientific evidence to support it. Even assuming no such evidence exists, this reasoning is flawed. In the absence of conclusive scientific evidence, the Legislature could rationally proceed on the common-sense premise that children will do best with a mother and father in the home."
Yep, common sense trumps science any day. Give me a nice significance test, with big sample sizes and good statistics, that demonstrates no apparent difference in the children of same- and opposite- sex marriages, and I'll just say "well, but common sense says..." Ahhh, the refusal to act until you have "conclusive" evidence. Please note that the majority opinion justices are not saying that they did not see evidence; they are denying that said evidence was "conclusive." (Also they are saying that evidence that the children of opposite-sex couples are better off could exist, which kinda boggles the mind, because the defendants would totally have used same in their case if they could've.)
I'm probably overreacting. But just. That word. "Rational." Gnargh.
"Our conclusion that there is a rational basis for limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples leads us to hold that that limitation is valid under the New York Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, and that any expansion of the traditional definition of marriage should come from the Legislature."
Then they go into a bunch of stuff about Due Process and Equal Protection, but that's not the hinge point, for me. Nor is it the hinge point of the decision. "Rational." That's the word that pisses me off. And it's the basis of their decision: "Where no fundamental right is at issue, legislation is valid under the Due Process Clause if it is rationally related to legitimate government interests." Emphasis mine.
They're not just putting it off on the legislature, not just saying that it's not unconstitutional because of the way the law is written. That would be awful, but wouldn't make me as angry as this does. Because they're saying that there are rational reasons to keep me from getting married.
Those rational reasons appear to be:
1. Opposite-sex couples are more likely to have children accidentally, so we could say that it was valid to reward them for that and that "[the legislature] could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born. It thus could choose to offer an inducement -- in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits -- to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn, long-term commitment to each other." That is, apparently marriage is a bribe to encourage us to have kids, or to make couples who have an unexpected pregnancy stay together. Because the on-purpose pregnancies of same-sex couples don't need encouragement. Or something.
"The Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will
be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples, and thus that promoting stability in opposite sex
relationships will help children more." -- Right. Because prohibiting some parents from getting married will help children "more" than letting all parents form a "stable" relationships. And they don't really address this; they say "Our earlier discussion demonstrates that the
definition of marriage to include only opposite-sex couples is not irrationally underinclusive." That is, it doesn't fail to include same-sex couple with kids for any irrational reason, but for a rational one: bribery.
2. "Plaintiffs seem to assume that they have demonstrated the irrationality of the view that opposite-sex marriages offer advantages to children by showing there is no scientific evidence to support it. Even assuming no such evidence exists, this reasoning is flawed. In the absence of conclusive scientific evidence, the Legislature could rationally proceed on the common-sense premise that children will do best with a mother and father in the home."
Yep, common sense trumps science any day. Give me a nice significance test, with big sample sizes and good statistics, that demonstrates no apparent difference in the children of same- and opposite- sex marriages, and I'll just say "well, but common sense says..." Ahhh, the refusal to act until you have "conclusive" evidence. Please note that the majority opinion justices are not saying that they did not see evidence; they are denying that said evidence was "conclusive." (Also they are saying that evidence that the children of opposite-sex couples are better off could exist, which kinda boggles the mind, because the defendants would totally have used same in their case if they could've.)
I'm probably overreacting. But just. That word. "Rational." Gnargh.
