Same-Sex Marriage Ban

The normal Wednesday post will be split into 2 smaller posts today as I wanted to briefly discuss 2 very different, unrelated topics. Hopefully this will avoid confusion. Find the other post here.

Sorry all, but I've got to get a little political here. I promise to keep it short.

I'm not sure if you know, but I live in Tennessee. Like many Southern Conservative states, at some point our politicians put into place a same-sex marriage ban. It was the hope of the more forward-thinking among our citizenry that, as has been the trend recently, this ban would be struck down in court.

Wishful thinking.

That links to a brief article discussing that a judge recently found Tennessee's same-sex marriage ban to be constitutional. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Even Texas ruled that a same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional earlier this year! So Texas is now more progressive that Tennessee. Didn't see that one coming.

(source)

My biggest beef with all this is the justification the judge gave for his decision:

“Marriage simply cannot be divorced from its traditional procreative purposes... the promotion of family continuity and stability is certainly a legitimate state interest. There is nothing irrational about limiting the institution of marriage for the purpose for which it was created, by embracing its traditional definition. To conclude otherwise is to impose one’s own view of what a State ought to do on the subject of same-sex marriage."

Let's read that top line one more time: "Marriage simply cannot be divorced from its traditional procreative purposes..."

How ridiculous is that? One could perhaps argue that the traditional purpose of sex is procreation. One might even argue that the traditional purpose of marriage is parenting. But of course, those justifications are also both ridiculous (neither is biblically sound which is supposedly the driving cause behind all this bigotry, and the latter wouldn't exclude homosexuals but would exclude single parents) and neither would justify a same-sex ban.

(source)

So let's break it down. If the purpose of marriage is procreation and not love, commitment, or even religious compliance, what does that mean for heterosexual couples who are married but don't want kids? Are they going to now be legally required to bear children regardless? After all, that's the purpose of their marriage, right? What about heterosexual couples who can't conceive for some reason? Are they now to be expected to spend thousands of dollars on fertilization treatments, or be required to divorce because they can't get pregnant? (Spoiler alert, this bizarre system would result in LOTS of extra-marital sex!) The most heartbreaking and insulting part comes when you consider all of the children in our nation and worldwide up for adoption. Children that have been abandoned and just need a home. According to Judge Simmons, those poor kids will just have to suck it up and stay where they are because married couples are require to procreate and make their own babies biologically rather than taking in others. I'd also be willing to bet he opposes the rights of same-sex couples to adopt, so that removes the only remaining avenue of hope for these children.

So, thanks, Judgie-poo for managing to screw over several disadvantaged groups all at once because you're a bigot.

Judge Simmons, image courtesy 

of the article linked above