It's nice to see some good news.
In a much-anticipated ruling issued Thursday, the California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional...
[The ruling] said that the state law's language "limiting the designation of marriage to a 'union between a man and a woman' is unconstitutional, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available to both opposite-sex and same-sex couples."
Simply awesome news. Of course, leave it to me to find something to complain about.
"The government should promote and encourage strong families," said Glen Lavy of the Alliance Defense Fund. "The voters realize that defining marriage as one man and one woman is important because the government should not, by design, deny a child both a mother and father."
Dammit, journalists really need to call these people on this shit. I would love to hear an actual rational explanation on why the welfare of children should have any weight, let alone be the sole factor, when deciding marriage laws. You don't need to be married to legally have children. You don't need to have children to be legally married. There is no legal connection between marriage and childbearing. So in what way does allowing gay couples, who within the confines of a marriage contract are unable to conceive children, impact child welfare at all? What parenting situation is now legal that was not legal before? There isn't one. Period. So if you're going to interview bigots, I'd appreciate it if you made them be honest about their bigotry, instead of letting them slide by with more "It's for the children!" bullshit that doesn't hold up to five seconds of scrutiny.
