Responding to:

"It goes back to the test used to decide the case. The judge is saying that, using the example above, the legislature could rationally deny homosexuals the right to marry, and therefore the Domestic Relations Law is constitutional. (Remember, the plaintiffs, in the judge's eyes, failed to prove that the argument was irrational.) That is the heart of the ruling, and a little less broad than Miles makes it out to be."

The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that marriage is a fundamental right. See Skinner v. State of Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942). See also Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). As such, a statute that denies a person a fundamental right must undergo Strict Scrutiny. Strict scrutiny means that a law must(1) be justified by a compelling governmental interest, and (2) be narrowly tailored to the achievement of the stated purpose. See Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989). I doubt you will find many judges that thinks that banning same-sex marriage satisfies strict scrutiny, which is why all State Supreme Courts that have upheld gay marriage bans have considered the statutes using the rational basis test, which is in error.

To those that think this is 'a battle for the legislature,' consider Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that laws banning interracial couples from marrying was unconstitutional. 1967, people! We're not talking about the beginning of the civil rights movement, we're talking about the end, when equality for African-Americans was supposedly accomplished. Did you know that the FIRST time that a majority of Americans approved of interracial marriage was in 1991? Issues of equality under the law should not be an issue for "the people" to decide as a majority. These issues have a firm right and wrong answer; unlike some other policy questions such as tax reform. They are questions of human dignity.

The debate about whether same-sex couples or opposite-sex couples are more suited to be married is irrelevant. As this article noted, marriage licenses are not a limited resource, there is no demonstrated harm to opposite-sex couples by allowing same-sex couples to marry. Thus, no rational basis can be demonstrated for denying same-sex couples.

Regarding whether children SHOULD have same-sex parents, the debate is also irrelevant. Children DO have same-sex parents, and by denying their parents protection under the law, the NYSC has harmed the exact children it purports to protect. I thoroughly enjoyed this article. Here's hoping we don't get the same result in Washington State (my home) in the coming months as its Supreme Court is expected to give a decision very soon.

First, I don't know if this is serious, but I really like it. Has there ever been a call via the internet to no one and everyone at the same time to protest? If so, I never heard about it. So, if there are any bloggers out there and they are as attracted to this idea as I am, link to this article!