Gay marriage ban upheld by courts in Washington

Not surpring, given the recent string of setbacks for LGBT equality, but intensely frustrating nonetheless based on the "logic" of the ruling. The ruling was 5-4.

The state argued that it has a legitimate interest in regulating relationships that produce children.

At the time I'm writing this I've only found a post of the subject at Pam's House Blend. Commenters are right on target in suggesting:

• the courts are actually not doing their jobs by allowing the holding majority to decide the rights of the tax-paying minority. whatever happened to equal protection under the law?

• Why don't we start suing to dissolve all these marriages that haven't produced children since that is the reason these decisions are citing. Obviously if a couple hasn't had children their marraige is a failure and no longer serving the state's interest.

• It is now time to go at this from a different direction. There should now be a push to limit what a marriage is as defined by recent ruling. A marraige is only valid and the benefits only become legal upon the production of a child and the child must be produced physically at the courthouse within a limited time period of the marraige license being issued. Divorce should be virtually impossible to obtain . All childless couples shall lose their benefits immediately.

Here is a portion of the dissenting opinion by Justice Mary E. Fairhurst:

The plurality and concurrence condone blatant discrimination against
Washington’s gay and lesbian citizens in the name of encouraging procreation,
marriage for individuals in relationships that result in children, and the
raising of children in homes headed by opposite-sex parents, while ignoring the
fact that denying same-sex couples the right to marry has no prospect of
furthering any of those interests.

With the proper issue in mind--whether denying same-sex couples the right
to marry will encourage procreation, marriage for individuals in relationships
that result in children, or child rearing in households headed by two
opposite-sex parents--I would hold that there is no rational basis for denying
same-sex couples the right to marry.

I would hold further that the right to marry the person of one’s choice is
a fundamental right, the denial of which has historically received heightened
scrutiny. It is error to artificially limit the inquiry, as the plurality and
concurrence do, to whether there is a fundamental right to same-sex marriage.

It is equally incorrect to limit the definition of the right to marry to
the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. Because the Defense of
Marriage Act’s (DOMA’s) denial of the right to marry to same-sex couples is not
rationally related to any asserted state interest, it is also not narrowly
tailored to any compelling state interest.

Again, the ruling just squeaked by 5-4. This issue is far from dead. Let the uproar begin.