March 10, 2008

*baffled* and *puzzled*

2005, Indiana Court of Appeals:

"The State, first of all, may legitimately create the institution of opposite-sex marriage, and all
the benefits accruing to it, in order to encourage male-female couples to procreate within the legitimacy and stability of a state-sanctioned relationship and to discourage unplanned, out-of wedlock births resulting from “casual” intercourse. Second, even where an opposite-sex couple enters into a marriage with no intention of having children, “accidents” do happen, or persons often change their minds about wanting to have children. The institution of marriage not only encourages opposite-sex couples to form a relatively stable environment for the “natural” procreation of children in the first place, but it also encourages them to stay together and raise a child or children together if there is a “change in plans.”"

The logic of this still eludes me...

1 comment:

Zoe said...

Chalk 1 up for my great state of Indiana.