Today the Washington State Supreme Court upheld the Defense of Marriage Act as constitutional.
One should note, however, that they explicitly did not say whether or not it was a good idea — in fact, they hinted otherwise. But their job is not to make policy, only decide if policy is constitutional, and they sided with the legislature in this case.
Their arguments once again showed that the fundamentalists driving this issue are much more of a threat to my marriage than gay marriage. From the majority opinion:
…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. Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not, in the legislature’s view, further these purposes. Accordingly, there is no violation of the privileges and immunities clause.
What this implies is that the purpose of marriage is to have kids. So if you’re unable to have kids for biological reasons, this ruling threatens your right to marry. If you’re past your prime and divorced or widowed, this ruling threatens your right to re-marry. If you choose not to have children? Sorry, but marriage clearly isn’t for you. By attempting to define my marriage, and its goals, DOMA-style legislation is a serious threat to my heterosexual marriage.
I hate to haul out slippery-slope arguments, but what’s next: attempts to legally define my role as a husband? I stay at home while my wife works. I cook dinner and she mows the lawn. She manages the finances and can do more chin-ups than me. I pick the colors when we paint the walls. How soon until some right-wing nutjob decides that it’d be better for the children if my wife stayed home and stayed out of men’s affairs?
Just like we look back and cluck our tongues at the sexists and racists of the past century, our children will be doing the same to the homophobes of the present day.