In 2006 the New York State Court of Appeals “rejected the view that the ban against same-sex marriage [in that state] was irrational and arbitrary and therefore unconstitutional.”
The Court, desperately trying to cobble together a rationale that wasn’t purely arbitrary, came up with this drug fantasy: “The court reasoned that … same-sex couples can only have children … through careful planning. In contrast … [because] different-sex couples can ‘become parents [by] accident’ … heterosexual couples … are more likely to be unstable … [T]he court concluded that it was rational for the legislature to provide protection to the more unstable … relationships while denying protection to the more stable …” In other words, heterosexual relationships are likelier to be more “’casual and temporary’” than gay ones.
How excluding same-sex couples from protection was supportive to the casual and temporary straights was left unexplained. Legal protections destabilize the steady at the same time they help out the casual? I guess allowing people to marry who are less likely to divorce would put divorce court judges out of work!
That’s what passes for reason in homophobic judges!
We can have a cynical laugh, I suppose, at the turning on its head of one of the most deeply held traditional prejudices against gay relationships -- if such laughter doesn’t hurt your gut more than just drinking.
source: From the Closet to the Courtroom: five LGBT rights lawsuits that have changed our nation by Carlos A. Ball