Both the Georgia Supreme Court and New York Court of Appeals ruled on gay marriage yesterday, and both ruled against it.

Now, is Georgia any surprise?  The state isn’t exactly known as a pillar of equality in the good ol’ U.S. of A.  Besides, as you’ll remember, that’s the state that has some serious government issues.  I mean, trying to remove evolution and all mention of Charles Darwin from the science curriculum was bad enough, but then they tried to outlaw female genital piercings as though it was the government’s business to do so.

In the case of gay marriage, Georgia’s court found that the amendment did not violate the state’s single-subject rule despite the fact that it does violate the rule in the clearest way.  No, poppets, Georgia is the embarrassing sibling the other kids ignore at the playground, the East Coast equivalent of Star Jones (only bigger, as hard as that is to believe).  I could have been surprised only had the state’s court found in favor of equality for gays.  So let’s just ignore that one—like we generally ignore the state altogether for its silly and backwoods approach to government, not to mention its incessant desire to meddle in the personal lives of its denizens.

But what about New York?  That decision surprised me.  I’m sure I’m not the only one.  You see, the court talked out of both sides of its mouth in the decision, a squirming maneuver blatantly designed to prevent the court from meting out true justice.  Instead, the ball was tossed back to the legislative body with a note from the court that overtly stated “We have no idea what to do with this.”

I will refrain from excessively beating this particularly deceased equine, but I would like to point out a few problems with New York’s decision—and the horribly flawed logic the justices used in making it.

First, this little tidbit from the court’s findings:

By limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, New York is not engaging in sex discrimination. The limitation does not put men and women in different classes, and give one class a benefit not given to the other. Women and men are treated alike — they are permitted to marry people of the opposite sex, but not people of their own sex.

Perhaps you should read that again to be sure you understand what they’re saying.

Now, my English skills are quite sharp, and my comprehension and retention abilities are equally refined, yet I can not help but walk away from those few sentences with the belief that New York’s justices are mentally impaired in some way that remains less obvious than were they to be streaking through the court’s chambers in their birthday suits.  What they have decided, irrespective of their denial, is that the sexes can not be treated equally in all cases.  Men can marry women, but women can’t marry women.  Again, women can marry men, but men can’t marry men.  The sad truth is that is precisely the kind of sex discrimination from which the court is attempting to distance itself.  They have found in favor of granting one set of rights to men and a different set to women.  Saying it isn’t so does not mean it isn’t so.

Comparably, what the New York court is promoting is segregation.  Use of this particular argument is akin to declaring that whites and blacks are equal because both are allowed on the bus, yet the devil’s in the details when one realizes that whites can ride anywhere and blacks have to ride in the back.  Sure, there’s a level of equality in the fact that both can use the bus, yet closer examination clearly eviscerates the argument in light of the apparent disparity between the two.  It is discrimination wrapped in a cloak of pseudo-equality.

Again, one could use this argument to say that the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II did not represent a negation of their rights as Americans.  They were provided food and water, shelter, security, and most importantly, they were not evicted from the United States, nor did they lose their citizenship.  From the highest level, you might argue they were being treated like any other American—at least those who have committed crimes.  Did this brand of “equality” mean no injustice was done?  Of course not.

It is not equality the court is protecting in this instance; it is the status quo.  Those two concepts are quiet different.  However, I believe the majority in our country has a far more difficult time seeing it because they are the majority, and empathy and understanding are not traits normally associated with a ruling class.

But the court wasn’t done with their aversive song and dance routine.  It gets better.  To wit:

[T]he Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships. Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not. Despite the advances of science, it remains true that the vast majority of children are born as a result of a sexual relationship between a man and a woman, and the Legislature could find that this will continue to be true. The Legislature could also find that such relationships are all too often casual or temporary. It could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born. It thus could choose to offer an inducement – in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits – to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn, long-term commitment to each other.

The Legislature could find that this rationale for marriage does not apply with comparable force to same-sex couples. These couples can become parents by adoption, or by artificial insemination or other technological marvels, but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse. The Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples, and thus that promoting stability in opposite sex relationships will help children more. This is one reason why the Legislature could rationally offer the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples only.

Let’s begin with the most obvious fallacy: stop using children to justify your prejudice and intolerance.  At least a quarter of a century worth of research clearly shows children are not hurt by the sexuality of their parents.  It is disgusting to see them used in this manner, a tool intended solely to bludgeon the rights of a minority.  If those entrusted with the health and welfare of our children adamantly disagree with you after decades of investigation, your argument is vacuous at best.

More importantly, as the American Academy of Pediatrics stated: “Conscientious and nurturing adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can be excellent parents. The rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage can further strengthen these families.”  The court offers only lip service to kids in this regard.  Attempting to utilize the welfare of children in such a manner, especially when contrary to the facts, should disgust anyone who believes children deserve the best chance we can give them.  Instead, the court believes they only deserve such protections and rights, and therefore the stability, security, and safety that comes with them, if they are the children of heterosexual parents.  How can one not see this is both discrimination and endangerment of children based on the sexuality of their parents?

The parallel is that this particular segment of the court’s argument dehumanizes homosexuals by citing as dispensable the increased responsibility, stability, health, legal protections, and welfare and security of children inherent in marriage, at least the children of homosexuals.  The justices clearly state that these are all benefits of marriage, but that heterosexuals need these rights whereas homosexuals do not.  In this, the court has declared the children of homosexuals to be less deserving of any legal protection or right otherwise granted to the children of heterosexual couples.  They have taken intolerance a step further than anticipated by singling out the families of homosexuals as deserving of fewer rights.  So much for caring about the children.

And why the obvious wedge betwixt the two groups?  Again, children.  The court makes abundantly clear their concern that straight couples are irresponsible and can have children by accident, whereas gay couples can not, and because heterosexual couples have made such a mess of civil marriage, the court sees it as reasonable to provide more incentives for them to stay together by way of the undeniable privileges of marriage.  Sadly, this argument is a double-edged sword for children: you deserve all the help you can get only if your parents are straight; if they’re gay, you’re on your own.

But that’s not as disturbing as the use of pregnancy as justification for refusing equality under the law.  If we follow that logic to its direct conclusion, here are a few items we need to change: (1) Remove all legal obstacles that prohibit women from going shirtless in public.  After all, breastfeeding is a function of parenthood and should be supported throughout our society.  We mustn’t allow the overly sensitive and misguided ethics of anyone to interfere with the well-being of the kids of heterosexual parents.  (2) We should outlaw divorce to ensure such pregnancies are protected to the greatest extent possible.  A pregnant mother needs support from a husband, so make it impossible for them to withdraw from parenthood.  (3) Enact stiff criminal penalties for pregnancies out of wedlock.

Shall I go on?  Or do you see where that argument leads?

The entertaining aspect of this piece of the ruling is that it clearly labels heterosexual couples as irresponsible.  Because sexual recklessness on their part easily places children in danger, they require marriage as a government incentive to more properly address this shortcoming.  For the children, of course.  Perhaps the court didn’t get the prejudice memo that stated the argument should be reversed and gays demonized for posing a risk to kids.

I can not recommend you try wading through the entire ruling from New York’s highest court since the findings are replete with such nonsensical gibberish.  It is as though the court made up any answer they could to avoid the real issue and its legal and constitutional implications.  Instead, they focused on children, albeit in ways heretofore never considered and laughably inappropriate.  They insulted every straight person on the planet by inferring marriage is an incentive to keep those irresponsible straights from popping out kids left and right without being accountable for their actions.  They promoted segregation and discrimination through word games intended to hide such traits in their decision, even going so far as to outline what men can do that women can’t, and vice versa, and then justifying it by saying it’s not what it appears to be: sexual discrimination.

This is the most enigmatic yet unarguable example of judicial incompetence, ignorance, injustice, and intolerance.  The court should be ashamed.

[btw, I’m not done thrashing the NY ruling, but this is enough for now]