Pacifica (autumnwinds) wrote,
Pacifica
autumnwinds

  • Mood:
I find it unpleasantly poignant that on the day I picked out the fabric for my wedding dress, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled that, under the state consitution, that gay couples do not have the right to marry.

Still, this is only an accessment of the status quo. They have decided on what the law says. Now let's get to work on changing it, eh?

(sit down, Tim Eyman. SIT DOWN)

Also, Justice Barbara A. Madsen, the only woman of the 5 justices on the bench that voted for the ban (3 of the 4 against the ban were women), wrote (my emphasis):

"...because the legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to survival of the human race,"

Dear Barbara,
WE HAVE ENOUGH PROCREATION NOW, KTHNX.

"...and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children’s biological parents. Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not, in the legislature’s view, further these purposes."

...so, are you saying that infertile couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt kids? Gay folks (especially lesbians) don't raise their own children? What?



When we get married, Tyler and I will gain a plethora of civil rights regarding our care of each other...hospitals, insurance, housing, inheritance, child care...and committed gay couples should have the same. And their committment to each other should earn the same respect as mine.

Don't get mad. Get to work.
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic
  • 1 comment