At least the battered unmarried women of Ohio can find solace in the fact that their suffering is for the noble cause of preventing gays from marrying. Here's to black eyes against gays. Here's to broken ribs to support heterosexuality. Here's to rape in the name of straight pride.
I can't believe they did that. Except, unfortunately, I can.
(Via this post on Feministing)
Posts
2 comments:
Without knowing more about the law itself or the decision, I wonder if the judge's ruling is really as awful as it appears to be.
It's at least conceivable that it was his (was it a he?) intention to weaken the anti-gay marriage law (and sentiment) by making a ruling based on it that hurts straight people.
It may have been his way of saying "You guys want to discriminate against people based on their relationship status? Well this is what will happen."
SR
From my understanding, the judge who made the decision (yes, it was a "he") was not really in a position to intend anything by his ruling -- it was a county judge with no mandate for interpreting the law in that way. The problem wasn't really his decision but the fact that the gay marraige ban, in how it defines relationships, made this outcome inevitable. However, as the appeal process goes forward and it reaches courts that can interpret the law and make decisions about constitutionality, it may end up working against the ban.
Post a Comment