Court’s decision is a positive step

“The governments of Indiana and Wisconsin have given us no reason to think they have a ‘reasonable basis’ for forbidding same-sex marriage.”
That’s part of the ruling that came out of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court on Thursday regarding an appeal against a lower court’s ruling that a same-sex marriage ban in Indiana is unconstitutional.
Same-sex couples and opponents of the ban across the state rejoiced Thursday after the ruling.
The justices ruled Indiana’s argument that thousands of years of collective experience have established traditional marriage, between one man and one woman, as optimal for the family, society and civilization was not supported by evidence.
The state and many same-sex marriage opponents have long argued that marriage is intended only for procreation and therefore only heterosexuals should be allowed to marry.
That’s an argument I’ve always had an issue with. Plenty of married couples throughout the United State choose not to have children, and some are unable to, yet most gay marriage opponents have no issue with those couples marrying.
And the idea that marriage is supported by the state to encourage fewer unwanted pregnancies is also a pathetic argument because there are still plenty of heterosexuals having children they don’t want. The homosexual couples the state is denying marriage to are often happy to adopt those “unwanted” children and give them a loving and stable home to grow up in, which will be far better than bouncing from foster home to foster home.
Justice Richard Posner, who was appointed by former President Ronald Reagan to serve on the 7th Circuit, shared many of my opinions, stating infertile heterosexual couples and even first cousins are allowed to marry, but the states of Indiana and Wisconsin continue to deny that right to same-sex couples.
“Why are they allowed to reap the benefits accorded marriages of fertile couples, and homosexuals are not,” he said.
And if gay marriage opponents are so worried about children, they should consider the impact this ban has on the children of gay couples.
They are being denied the financial and psychological benefits of having married parents, Posner said.
He wrote that the state’s rationale for banning same sex marriage is “so full of holes that it cannot be taken seriously,” and that’s what I’ve been saying all along.
Although this decision doesn’t end the fight for equality in Indiana, it’s another step in the right direction.
This ruling is likely to be taken to the U.S. Supreme Court, and for now the stay Attorney General Greg Zoeller filed after the previous ruling remains in effect, meaning same-sex marriages in Indiana aren’t legal.
Despite that setback, Thursday was an important day for those fighting for equality for same-sex couples and for the state. Another court finding Indiana’s ban unconstitutional likely brings Indiana one step closer to recognizing marriage for everyone.
It’s satisfying to know these judges, including one appointed by Reagan, feel Indiana’s reasoning for banning same-sex marriage is unfounded.
There is never a legitimate reason for discrimination.