Yesterday's New York high court ruling upholding a ban on same-sex marriage echoes a recent Indiana Court of Appeals decision. That Indiana decision used some rather odd reasoning revolving around the concept of careless heterosexuals, according to a legal analysis in the Gay City News. Hat tip to PageOneQ.
The news writes (emphasis mine):
The Indiana court theorized that while same-sex couples can only have children as a result of deliberate intention through adoption or donor insemination, opposite-sex couples can have children through carelessness, accidents (broken condoms, drunken orgies, what have you), or indirection, and thus the Legislature could rationally believe that the purpose of providing the rights and benefits of marriage should be used as an incentive to corral those careless breeders into bonds of matrimony.
Of course, (New York Judge) Smith utterly fails to explain why not letting same-sex couples marry advances this goal of getting opposite-sex couples to do so.