Via Gawker, here's a disappointment from the New York courts:
The law assumes that a marriage will produce children and affords benefits based on that assumption. It sets up heterosexual marriage as the cultural, social and legal ideal in an effort to discourage unmarried childbearing."
Marriage laws are not primarily about adult needs for official recognition and support but about the well-being of children and society, and such preference constitutes a rational policy decision.
Forget the decision, what's up with the reasoning? Marriage isn't limited to the fertile, the potent, nor the child-friendly. It doesn't establish a time period for reproduction nor require review if five years pass without offspring.
If we want a social convention dedicated to encouraging the creation of children in committed homes, let's create one. It'll require classes in effective parenting to qualify, and it'll carry all manner of subsidies, wage supports, and care options that'll render the union materially worthwhile. But let's not pretend that the same certificate offered to newlywed 95-year olds is somehow an exclusive privilege of childbearing couples.
