Has the WA Supreme Court invalidated ALL childless marriages?

[TechBear_Seattle]

I was discussing the just announced ruling by the Washington State Supreme Court (see this post ) with a co-worker when she made a blindingly obvious observation. According to the official ruling:

... 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.

Her observation was: Has the Court declared invalid all childless marriages? Or at the least, has the Court authorized the Legislature (or the People, by initiative) to prohibit from marriage any individual who can not or will not have children?

I would value your opinions. :hi:

[BR_Parkway]

1. I was just thinking that we should start suing to dissolve these

marriages (and in NY too) since they offer procreation as the state interest that entitles the state to intrude.

We should have standing (well, single residents of those states)who aren't getting the same tax breaks and other treatments that their married, yet barren fellow citizens are. If they have no children, then the state is treating them differently than they are the single childless people.

[pnwmom]

10. Why waste our time on fruitless lawsuits when we SHOULD be

working on getting gay marriage approved through the legislature or through the initiative process?

All we'd be doing is alienating potential supporters. I don't see the pay-off at all.

[BOSSHOG]

2. I have been married for more than 30 years

My wife and I do not have children and I think the Washington SC is as insane as george bush. Marriage has nothing to do with procreation since you can marry and not have children and not marry and have children and there ain't a fucking thing those neanderthal constitution hating thugs can do about it.

"Well-being of children" being "reared" by their biological father??

Along with rick santorum these maggots are some of the greatest minds of the 13th century.

[MaineDem]

5. I'm in the exact same situation as you

And this reasoning infuriates me, as well.

The reasons for being childless are varied and no one's business. This is beginning to really piss me off the more I think about it.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. As a child of divorced parents,

where my biological father disappeared from my life at age 8, I can tell you I thanked my lucky stars when my mother remarried 8 years later to a great guy who always treated me like I was his daughter. The court's ruling is stupid in that it doesn't take into account the fact that fathering a child doesn't make you a good parent.

[BOSSHOG]

8. One potential bit of good news here

the vote was 5 to 4, so the court is not totally consumed by scum.

[Nederland]

3. No

but I would agree with your lesser point:

Or at the least, has the Court authorized the Legislature (or the People, by initiative) to prohibit from marriage any individual who can not or will not have children?

The court is merely saying the Legislature has the power to do this, not that they should. Personally, I believe that this decision is the right one. If Roe vs. Wade taught us anything, it's that we shouldn't have issues like this settled by people that are not elected. In Europe the abortion issue was settle by legislatures and the result was far less devisive. Given that the majority of people are pro-choice and a majority are (or will be soon, as older people die off) marriage, the result in the long run is the same.

[sallyseven]

7. Being elected does not make you smart.

Santorum is a prime example. Some of the dumbest f k's in the world are elected officials. Bush, cheney, etc. Keep it in the courts. They don't have to pander to the idiots.

[Nederland]

9. True...

...but there are also stupid justices too. The principle I'm articulating is that these types of decisions should be made by people that have to face the electorate, not by people appointed to lifelong positions.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

4. Well as everyone knows, now that we are officially a Christian

nation, that we have an obligation to G-d to further his creation so that he will never run out of a supply of people to arm and send to war. :sarcasm:

[pnwmom]

11. No, but the Court did say that the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence

or studies showing that homosexuality is an immutable trait. And it included a footnote adding that such evidence may be available in the future.

The implication, to me, is that different plaintiffs with different lawyers and a better legal brief may have had a different outcome. I think that the Court actually left the door wide open.