NO RATIONAL RELATIONSHIP?: Michael Sellitto replies to Maggie Gallagher

Here Maggie Gallagher says:

"As in Goodridge, the judge not only could find no 'compelling' state interest in marriage as the union of husband and wife, but no 'rational relation' to any legitimate state interest."

It's interesting to actually read the text of the decision. What the judge said seems entirely reasonable: same-sex and opposite-sex couples without children or plans to have them are situated identically as far as the state is concerned. Are
they not?

And the corollary: couples with children, or plans to have them, regardless of whether they're same- or op-sex are also identically situated as far as the
state is concerned. The state has an identical interest in ensuring the children are cared for and protected.

In other words, there is no rational reason to treat identically situated couples differently. The fact that some individuals may not like the religion, color or sex of the couples is not a rational state interest.

Regarding children with couples, the judge quotes from the Vermont Supreme Court decision in 1999: "If anything, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the legal protections incident to marriage exposes their children to the precise risks that the State argues the marriage laws are designed to secure against."

Gallagher's argument that the judge is wrong in saying there is no rational reason to exclude same-sex families from marriage requires us to believe that children with opposite-sex parents get benefits from their parents being married that the state has an interest in, whereas children with same-sex parents would not benefit at all from having married parents. Gallagher thinks that is a rational, logical position?

posted by Eve at 8:02 PM VOTE

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home