Comments on: Andersen v. King County http://www.tinmanic.com/archives/2006/07/26/andersen-v-king-county/ Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:46:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Andy http://www.tinmanic.com/archives/2006/07/26/andersen-v-king-county/comment-page-1/#comment-42623 Andy Thu, 27 Jul 2006 00:51:39 +0000 http://www.tinmanic.com/archives/2006/07/26/andersen-v-king-county/#comment-42623 I did not have time today to really read the majority opinion, or the concurrences, or any of the dissents, as they are quite lengthy and...well, my job at The Homosexual Agenda is not really pertinent to legal or policy aspects, alas. But on the brief glance I was afforded, yes, you are correct that the Washington decision is MUCH better written than the New York ruling, and it seems that their conclusions are more solidly based on sound interpretation of precedent and the proper deference courts should show a legislature...EXCEPT that all of this is predicated on their acceptance that encouraging heterosexual procreation within marriage is a legitimate government interest that same-sex marriage would somehow adversely affect. They go to great lengths to explain why no special scrutiny is required for this issue (as did New York, as did Nebraska), merely "rational basis," and then they come up with a justification that defies rationality altogether. ARGH. From my homestate, no less! Sadness. I did not have time today to really read the majority opinion, or the concurrences, or any of the dissents, as they are quite lengthy and…well, my job at The Homosexual Agenda is not really pertinent to legal or policy aspects, alas. But on the brief glance I was afforded, yes, you are correct that the Washington decision is MUCH better written than the New York ruling, and it seems that their conclusions are more solidly based on sound interpretation of precedent and the proper deference courts should show a legislature…EXCEPT that all of this is predicated on their acceptance that encouraging heterosexual procreation within marriage is a legitimate government interest that same-sex marriage would somehow adversely affect.

They go to great lengths to explain why no special scrutiny is required for this issue (as did New York, as did Nebraska), merely “rational basis,” and then they come up with a justification that defies rationality altogether.

ARGH. From my homestate, no less! Sadness.

]]>