Governor Kasich was Mealy-Mouthed and Missed an Opportunity to Defend Ohio's Constitution on the Marriage Amendment

Governor Kasich is getting a lot of attention for his stance on gay marriage during the primary debate (video).

But earlier this year, before the Supreme Court's decision on the Ohio's Marriage Amendment as it related to the Ohio-initiated Obergefell v. Hodges case, he failed to make the case on behalf of the people of Ohio.

In the April 18, 2015 CNN interview with Sara Murray he was asked about his position on gay marriage and his decision to attend a wedding of a close gay friend (Video starting at 0:35):

Sarra Murray: "...So what brought you to that decision even though you are opposed to gay marriage?"

Governor Kasich: "...It's pretty simple for me.  I don't need to be making big statements about any of this.  I'm not going to change my position on it.   We'll see what the court does. But, it's pretty simple.  I care about him, he cares about me. He invited me to something.  I'm going to go do it.  It's not that complicated..."  

When it mattered most, Governor Kasich was mealy-mouthed on the democratically arrived at public policy of the state he governs.

As the highest elected official of the state, the issue was not solely about how he privately felt, but about how Ohio's decision to economically subsidize relationships that resulted in new citizens for the state.

Consistent with his position, Kasich should have said something like:

 'I've carefully read Judge Sutton's decision from the 6th Circuit that the Supreme Court is now reviewing.   The opinion exactly captures the intent of my fellow citizens in Ohio when we voted for a change to our constitution in 2004.  The justices of the Supreme Court should look at Judge Sutton's sound legal reasoning and respect the democratic will of Ohioans when he states':

...One starts from the premise that governments got into the business of defining marriage, and remain in the business of defining marriage, not to regulate love but to regulate sex, most especially the intended and unintended effects of male-female intercourse. Imagine a society without marriage. It does not take long to envision problems that might result from an absence of rules about how to handle the natural effects of male-female intercourse: children. May men and women follow their procreative urges wherever they take them? Who is responsible for the children that result? How many mates may an individual have? How does one decide which set of mates is responsible for which set of children? That we rarely think about these questions nowadays shows only how far we have come and how relatively stable our society is, not that States have no explanation for creating such rules in the first place.

Once one accepts a need to establish such ground rules, and most especially a need to create stable family units for the planned and unplanned creation of children, one can well appreciate why the citizenry would think that a reasonable first concern of any society is the need to regulate male-female relationships and the unique procreative possibilities of them. One way to pursue this objective is to encourage couples to enter lasting relationships through subsidies and other benefits and to discourage them from ending such relationships through these and other means. People may not need the government’s encouragement to have sex. And they may not need the government’s encouragement to propagate the species. But they may well need the government’s encouragement to create and maintain stable relationships within which children may flourish. It is not society’s laws or for that matter any one religion’s laws, but nature’s laws (that men and women complement each other biologically), that created the policy imperative. And governments typically are not second-guessed under the Constitution for prioritizing how they tackle such issues. Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 486–87 (1970)...
...What we are left with is this: By creating a status (marriage) and by subsidizing it (e.g., with tax-filing privileges and deductions), the States created an incentive for two people who procreate together to stay together for purposes of rearing offspring. That does not convict the States of irrationality, only of awareness of the biological reality that couples of the same sex do not have children in the same way as couples of opposite sexes and that couples of the same sex do not run the risk of unintended offspring. That explanation, still relevant today, suffices to allow the States to retain authority over an issue they have regulated from the beginning...

John Bursch Uses Porkopolis' Logical Arguments in Supreme Court Case: Obergefell v. Hodges

Background:

• In November of 2014, the logical argument was made that marriage is not a United States Constitutional legal right.  
• In October of 2009, the argument was made that a state's recognition of marriage was a tri-party agreement; with financial benefits to the couple being recognized by the state.  That argument was stated in the 6th Circuit DeBoer v. Snyder  opinion.

In his arguments against forcing states to recognize same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges, John Bursch (Special Assistant Attorney General for Michigan) used this exact same line of reasoning.   From the hearing's transcript (page 78) (emphasis added):

...In Butler, you said when someone's serving a life sentence, it's appropriate for the State to deny them the opportunity to marry because they never had that opportunity.

So even there, you you were tying the State interest that we're asserting here to marriage. 

And and let let's take away all laws regarding cohabitation and and intimacy outside of marriage so that there is no criminal conduct, the underlay for all those things. 

If the State today decided to have no marriage, as some States have proposed, that wouldn't violate a fundamental right. The fundamental right at stake in those cases was the right to be left alone, not the right, as Chief Justice Roberts intimated in the first part of this argument, to force the government to come into your home and recognize something and and to give you benefits. Those are two very different things. 

And and you can draw the analogy to the abortion context. And I'm reluctant to bring that up, but, you know, in Roe v. Wade and Casey, this Court says the government cannot interfere in that private choice. That's a fundamental right. In Maher, the Court says but a woman cannot force the government to come participate in that by paying for it.

Likewise here. Lawrence said the government cannot interfere in private, intimate conduct. Our position is that the Court cannot, as a constitutional matter, say but yes, you can force the State into these relationships by by forcing them to recognize and give benefits to anyone. That's not the way that our fundamental rights doctrine works....

Debate: Does the Constitution Require States to Recognize Same-Sex Marriage?:

 See the logical and legal slap downs (video) of the argument against the 'polygamous slippery slope'.

Legal Reasoning: Marriage is not a Federal Constitutional Fundamental Right

The post '6th Circuit Echoes Porkopolis' Arguments on Rationale for State of Ohio Defining Marriage' demonstrates how Judge Sutton's 6th circuit opinion echoes an argument made on this blog in 2009.

Judge Sutton also reasoned in the opinion that a state only has to satisfy a minimal rational basis for establishing marriage.  The act of establishing a rational marriage law is in essence an act of discernment and not an act of discrimination.

Euclid used the technique of using contradictions (reductio ad absurdum) when arguing mathematical proofs.

As in a Euclidean mathematical proof, a contradiction is used in the following line of reasoning that has been forwarded to the Ohio Attorney General's office in the event that the 6th circuit ruling is reviewed by the Supreme Court:

Marriage is not a United States Constitutional Fundamental Right 

It is the law of the land, through the Windsor decision, that a state like New York can define marriage within its borders and the federal government must respect that. This was the rationale to strike down the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

What of the corollary to that? Can a state choose NOT to define marriage within its borders?

If a state chooses to do so, will the federal government intercede and say, "You CAN'T be a state without a definition of marriage."?

If one argues that the federal government has the right to tell the state it can't exist without any marriage laws, a reference to the U.S. Constitution where that authority exists must be provided.

Now, if one can't find that clause in the U.S. Constitution, then the conclusion must be that marriage is not a fundamental right and that state can still be part of the union with no marriage laws whatsoever.

And once one establishes that marriage is not a United States constitutional fundamental right, we're back to Windsor and every state has a right to define marriage to address the rational concerns as perceived by that state and the federal government can't intercede in a state's approach to addressing the rational concern.

If the rational concerns were universal rational concerns, they would be in the federal constitution; either in original form or amended.

Update (05/06/205) : Oklahoma House votes to do away with state marriage licenses

6th Circuit Echoes Porkopolis' Arguments on Rationale for State of Ohio Defining Marriage

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday upheld same-sex marriage bans in Ohio and three other states in DeBoer v. Snyder.

In doing so, the court used an argument that echoes the one made by Porkopolis in 2009:

...Before considering the question of gay marriage, a more fundamental question should be considered: Why marriage at all? 

In the United States, marriage is a tri-party legal agreement. The first two parties, husband and wife, are obvious. The third party is the state/community that acknowledges a marriage. Male and female couples petition the state –and more generally, their community– to recognize their marriage. If it was just a simple relationship amongst consenting adults, the community would have no need –and more importantly no business– acknowledging the relationship.

However, marriage is a relationship that imposes responsibilities on the community and that’s why the state is involved in its recognition and definition; as in detailing that only two (not more) individuals of the opposite sex will be recognized in a marriage. Married couples get legal tax and inheritance status. Male-female couples asking the state to recognize their marriage are also asking the state to address the care of their biological children if the couples are incapable of doing so.

What does the community get in return for consideration of this ‘special’ status? It is rejuvenated –by the only relationship that can procreate: a male-female relationship– and benefits from responsibly raised children in a marriage. Because of the corrosive effects to the community of infidelity, the community acknowledges only monogamous marriages. This shared responsibility amongst all the parties (husband, wife, community) is the limited government rationale for marriage as a legal construct...

From the court's opinion:

...One starts from the premise that governments got into the business of defining marriage, and remain in the business of defining marriage, not to regulate love but to regulate sex, most especially the intended and unintended effects of male-female intercourse. Imagine a society without marriage. It does not take long to envision problems that might result from an absence of rules about how to handle the natural effects of male-female intercourse: children. May men and women follow their procreative urges wherever they take them? Who is responsible for the children that result? How many mates may an individual have? How does one decide which set of mates is responsible for which set of children? That we rarely think about these questions nowadays shows only how far we have come and how relatively stable our society is, not that States have no explanation for creating such rules in the first place.

Once one accepts a need to establish such ground rules, and most especially a need to create stable family units for the planned and unplanned creation of children, one can well appreciate why the citizenry would think that a reasonable first concern of any society is the need to regulate male-female relationships and the unique procreative possibilities of them. One way to pursue this objective is to encourage couples to enter lasting relationships through subsidies and other benefits and to discourage them from ending such relationships through these and other means. People may not need the government’s encouragement to have sex. And they may not need the government’s encouragement to propagate the species. But they may well need the government’s encouragement to create and maintain stable relationships within which children may flourish. It is not society’s laws or for that matter any one religion’s laws, but nature’s laws (that men and women complement each other biologically), that created the policy imperative. And governments typically are not second-guessed under the Constitution for prioritizing how they tackle such issues. Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 486–87 (1970)...
...What we are left with is this: By creating a status (marriage) and by subsidizing it (e.g., with tax-filing privileges and deductions), the States created an incentive for two people who procreate together to stay together for purposes of rearing offspring. That does not convict the States of irrationality, only of awareness of the biological reality that couples of the same sex do not have children in the same way as couples of opposite sexes and that couples of the same sex do not run the risk of unintended offspring. That explanation, still relevant today, suffices to allow the States to retain authority over an issue they have regulated from the beginning...

The 6th Circuit opinion is extremely well reasoned and worthy of a complete reading as evidenced by this argument against the claim that "failure to recognize gay marriages celebrated in other States violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses":

...What of the reality that Ohio recognizes some heterosexual marriages solemnized in other States even if those marriages could not be performed in Ohio? See, e.g., Mazzolini v. Mazzolini, 155 N.E.2d 206, 208 (Ohio 1958). The only reason Ohio could have for banning recognition of same-sex marriages performed elsewhere and not prohibiting heterosexual marriages performed elsewhere, the Ohio plaintiffs claim, is animus or “discrimination of an unusual character.” Obergefell Appellees’ Br. at 18 (quoting Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2692).

But, in making this argument, the plaintiffs misapprehend Ohio law, wrongly assuming that Ohio would recognize as valid any heterosexual marriage that was valid in the State that sanctioned it. That is not the case. Ohio law recognizes some out-of-state marriages that could not be performed in Ohio, but not all such marriages. See, e.g., Mazzolini, 155 N.E.2d at 208 (marriage of first cousins); Hardin v. Davis, 16 Ohio Supp. 19, 20 (Ohio Ct. Com. Pl. 1945) (marriage by proxy). In Mazzolini, the most relevant precedent, the Ohio Supreme Court stated that a number of heterosexual marriages—ones that were “incestuous, polygamous, shocking to good morals, unalterably opposed to a well defined public policy, or prohibited”—would not be recognized in the State, even if they were valid in the jurisdiction that performed them. 155 N.E.2d at 208–09 (noting that first-cousin marriages fell outside this rule because they were “not made void by explicit provision” and “not incestuous”). Ohio law declares same-sex marriage contrary to the State’s public policy, placing those marriages within the longstanding exception to Ohio’s recognition rule. See Ohio Rev. Code § 3101.01(C)...

Related: Collection of Essays and Posts on Same-Sex Marriage

Collection of Essays and Posts on Same-Sex Marriage

Limited government libertarians should utilize logic-based (not emotion/authority-based) arguments when considering expanding a state's role with regard to recognizing and partnering (yes...partnering because legal marriage is a tri-party agreement between spouses and the state/community) with same-sex (or polygamous) marriages:

• What’s in it for U.S.?: The Limited Government Case against Gay Marriage (First posted on October 11, 2009.  Related arguments from federal law clerk William J Huan in The Limited Government Case Against Gay Marriage published on November 12, 2012.)
• Senator Rob Portman's Support of Gay Marriage Results in Bigger Government
• A Partial List of Legal Discriminations Found in the United States
• Supreme Court Recognizes States' Right to Define Marriage and Issues not Resolved by United States v. Windsor
• Gay Couple Attempts to Force Ohio to Recognize Their Out-of-State Marriage
• Federal Judge Shelby's Ruling on Utah Gay Marriage in Conflict with United States v. Windsor

Supreme Court Recognizes States' Right to Define Marriage and Issues not Resolved by United States v. Windsor

The Supreme Court ruled that states have a right to define marriage and the federal government application of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violates the Equal Protection guaranteed by the Constitution (emphasis added):

...(b) By seeking to injure the very class New York seeks to protect, DOMA violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government. The Constitution’s guarantee of equality “must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot” justify disparate treatment of that group. Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528, 534–535. DOMA cannot survive under these principles. Its unusual deviation from the tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage operates to deprive same-sex couples of the benefits and responsibilities that come with federal recognition of their marriages...

Issues that arise from this ruling acknowledging "state definitions of marriage" and left unresolved include (partial list...will be updated):

• If a state does not recognize same-sex marriages, does its courts have to extend judicial spousal privilege to a same-sex couple from another state?   
• Will same-sex couples seeking divorce have to go to a state that recognizes same-sex marriage if they live in a state that doesn't?
• Do same-sex married couples living in a state that doesn't recognize their marriage file two types of tax returns; married federal, individual state/local?
• Are same-sex married couples not eligible for state retirement benefits available to opposite-sex married couples in a state that doesn't recognize the marriage?
• 07/22/2013: Gay Couple Attempts to Force Ohio to Recognize Their Marriage
• 07/29/2013: Spousal Privilege: Kentucky same-sex case to be landmark

Related:

• What’s in it for U.S.?: The Limited Government Case against Gay Marriage
• Charles Krauthammer: Nationalized gay marriage, now inevitable

Senator Rob Portman's Support of Gay Marriage Results in Bigger Government

Republican U.S. Senator Rob Portman says, "I’ve changed my mind on the question of marriage for same-sex couples".

'What’s in it for U.S.?: The Limited Government Case against Gay Marriage' argues against same-sex marriage; making the case against growing government until we can identify the benefit to the governed.  It's re-posted in response to Senator Portman's public policy advocacy:

What’s in it for U.S.?: The Limited Government Case against Gay Marriage

While many cite cultural and religious reasons to oppose gay marriage, one doesn't need to resort to pathos and ethos-based arguments when formulating our public policy on marriage in general. A simple limited government philosophy offers the appropriate perspective.

The human condition is analog not digital. As in the non-human animal world, human sexuality is found along a spectrum of relationships. From a biological perspective and without scientific intervention, procreation in humans requires an individual male and an individual female.

Before considering the question of gay marriage, a more fundamental question should be considered: Why marriage at all?

In the United States, marriage is a tri-party legal agreement. The first two parties, husband and wife, are obvious. The third party is the state/community that acknowledges a marriage. Male and female couples petition the state –and more generally, their community– to recognize their marriage. If it was just a simple relationship amongst consenting adults, the community would have no need –and more importantly no business– acknowledging the relationship.

However, marriage is a relationship that imposes responsibilities on the community and that’s why the state is involved in its recognition and definition; as in detailing that only two (not more) individuals of the opposite sex will be recognized in a marriage. Married couples get legal tax and inheritance status. Male-female couples asking the state to recognize their marriage are also asking the state to address the care of their biological children if the couples are incapable of doing so.

What does the community get in return for consideration of this ‘special’ status? It is rejuvenated –by the only relationship that can procreate: a male-female relationship– and benefits from responsibly raised children in a marriage. Because of the corrosive effects to the community of infidelity, the community acknowledges only monogamous marriages. This shared responsibility amongst all the parties (husband, wife, community) is the limited government rationale for marriage as a legal construct.

Gay couples asking the community to recognize their relationships have a responsibility to address the question: ‘In return for the community’s recognition, what will you do for the state that justifies more government?’. They may counter that some gay couples have children and that their care benefits the community. But these children are not, and can not be, the natural offspring of a gay marriage. They are the shared responsibility of the biological parents and the state. The existing legal constructs are sufficient to address the children’s and community’s interests.

The state/community will be a party to any marriage and therefore has every right to say which marriages it will recognize. The gay couples seeking recognition must make their case for community involvement in their relationship when the sine qua non condition of biological procreation does not exist and there are sufficient laws to deal with any children in a gay relationship. Until the argument for an expansion of government is made, the basic principle of limited government, the minimal amount of laws our society needs to function, should prevail.

• Update 12/11/2012: Scientists May Have Finally Unlocked Puzzle of Why People Are Gay) 
• Update: 12/30/2012: State of Kansas wants sperm donor found on Craigslist to pay for daughter born to lesbian couple
• Update 2/5/2013: The Washington State Court of Appeals affirmed the argument of marriage being between a male and female in Singer v. Hara: see HeadNote [4] along with its detail.
  

  [4] Marriage -- Nature of Marriage -- Public Policy -- Same-sex Marriages. The legislative purpose behind RCW 26.04, which authorizes marriage only between two persons of different sex, is to give effect to the public policy of marriage being an appropriate and desirable forum for procreation and rearing of children. The prohibition of same-sex marriages results from the impossibility of procreation.

• Update 2/9/2013: Florida judge approves birth certificate listing three parents)
• Update 6/29/2014: The Brave New World of Three-Parent I.V.F.
• Update 11/7/2014: 6th Circuit Echoes Porkopolis' Arguments on Rationale for State of Ohio Defining Marriage
• Update 04/26/2015: What is Marriage? in Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol 34, No. 1, pp 245-287

What’s in it for U.S.?: The Limited Government Case against Gay Marriage

(Reposted in light of  Obama's 'evolution'.)

What’s in it for U.S.?: The Limited Government Case against Gay Marriage

While many cite cultural and religious reasons to oppose gay marriage, one doesn't need to resort to pathos and ethos-based arguments when formulating our public policy on marriage in general. A simple limited government philosophy offers the appropriate perspective.

The human condition is analog not digital. As in the non-human animal world, human sexuality is found along a spectrum of relationships. From a biological perspective and without scientific intervention, procreation in humans requires an individual male and an individual female.

Before considering the question of gay marriage, a more fundamental question should be considered: Why marriage at all?

In the United States, marriage is a tri-party legal agreement. The first two parties, husband and wife, are obvious. The third party is the state/community that acknowledges a marriage. Male and female couples petition the state –and more generally, their community– to recognize their marriage. If it was just a simple relationship amongst consenting adults, the community would have no need –and more importantly no business– acknowledging the relationship.

However, marriage is a relationship that imposes responsibilities on the community and that’s why the state is involved in its recognition and definition (see Update 2/5/2013 below); as in detailing that only two (not more) individuals of the opposite sex will be recognized in a marriage. Married couples get legal tax and inheritance status. Male-female couples asking the state to recognize their marriage are also asking the state to address the care of their biological children if the couples are incapable of doing so.

What does the community get in return for consideration of this ‘special’ status? It is rejuvenated –by the only relationship that can procreate: a male-female relationship– and benefits from responsibly raised children in a marriage. Because of the corrosive effects to the community of infidelity, the community acknowledges only monogamous marriages. This shared responsibility amongst all the parties (husband, wife, community) is the limited government rationale for marriage as a legal construct.

Gay couples asking the community to recognize their relationships have a responsibility to address the question: ‘In return for the community’s recognition, what will you do for the state that justifies more government?’. They may counter that some gay couples have children and that their care benefits the community. But these children are not, and can not be, the natural offspring of a gay marriage. They are the shared responsibility of the biological parents and the state. The existing legal constructs are sufficient to address the children’s and community’s interests.

The state/community will be a party to any marriage and therefore has every right to say which marriages it will recognize. The gay couples seeking recognition must make their case for community involvement in their relationship when the sine qua non condition of biological procreation does not exist and there are sufficient laws to deal with any children in a gay relationship. Until the argument for an expansion of government is made, the basic principle of limited government, the minimal amount of laws our society needs to function, should prevail.

• Update 12/11/2012: Scientists May Have Finally Unlocked Puzzle of Why People Are Gay) 
• Update: 12/30/2012: State of Kansas wants sperm donor found on Craigslist to pay for daughter born to lesbian couple
• Update 2/5/2013: The Washington State Court of Appeals affirmed the argument of marriage being between a male and female in Singer v. Hara: see HeadNote [4] along with its detail.
  

  [4] Marriage -- Nature of Marriage -- Public Policy -- Same-sex Marriages. The legislative purpose behind RCW 26.04, which authorizes marriage only between two persons of different sex, is to give effect to the public policy of marriage being an appropriate and desirable forum for procreation and rearing of children. The prohibition of same-sex marriages results from the impossibility of procreation.

• Update 2/9/2013: Florida judge approves birth certificate listing three parents)
• Update 6/29/2014: The Brave New World of Three-Parent I.V.F.
• Update 11/7/2014: 6th Circuit Echoes Porkopolis' Arguments on Rationale for State of Ohio Defining Marriage

What’s in it for U.S.?: The Limited Government Case against Gay Marriage

(Reposted in light of the recent vote in New York State.)

What’s in it for U.S.?: The Limited Government Case against Gay Marriage

While many cite cultural and religious reasons to oppose gay marriage, one doesn't need to resort to pathos and ethos-based arguments when formulating our public policy on marriage in general. A simple limited government philosophy offers the appropriate perspective.

The human condition is analog not digital. As in the non-human animal world, human sexuality is found along a spectrum of relationships. From a biological perspective and without scientific intervention, procreation in humans requires an individual male and an individual female.

Before considering the question of gay marriage, a more fundamental question should be considered: Why marriage at all?

In the United States, marriage is a tri-party legal agreement. The first two parties, husband and wife, are obvious. The third party is the state/community that acknowledges a marriage. Male and female couples petition the state –and more generally, their community– to recognize their marriage. If it was just a simple relationship amongst consenting adults, the community would have no need –and more importantly no business– acknowledging the relationship.

However, marriage is a relationship that imposes responsibilities on the community and that’s why the state is involved in its recognition and definition (see Update 2/5/2013 below); as in detailing that only two (not more) individuals of the opposite sex will be recognized in a marriage. Married couples get legal tax and inheritance status. Male-female couples asking the state to recognize their marriage are also asking the state to address the care of their biological children if the couples are incapable of doing so.

What does the community get in return for consideration of this ‘special’ status? It is rejuvenated –by the only relationship that can procreate: a male-female relationship– and benefits from responsibly raised children in a marriage. Because of the corrosive effects to the community of infidelity, the community acknowledges only monogamous marriages. This shared responsibility amongst all the parties (husband, wife, community) is the limited government rationale for marriage as a legal construct.

Gay couples asking the community to recognize their relationships have a responsibility to address the question: ‘In return for the community’s recognition, what will you do for the state that justifies more government?’. They may counter that some gay couples have children and that their care benefits the community. But these children are not, and can not be, the natural offspring of a gay marriage. They are the shared responsibility of the biological parents and the state. The existing legal constructs are sufficient to address the children’s and community’s interests.

The state/community will be a party to any marriage and therefore has every right to say which marriages it will recognize. The gay couples seeking recognition must make their case for community involvement in their relationship when the sine qua non condition of biological procreation does not exist and there are sufficient laws to deal with any children in a gay relationship. Until the argument for an expansion of government is made, the basic principle of limited government, the minimal amount of laws our society needs to function, should prevail.

• Update 12/11/2012: Scientists May Have Finally Unlocked Puzzle of Why People Are Gay) 
• Update: 12/30/2012: State of Kansas wants sperm donor found on Craigslist to pay for daughter born to lesbian couple
• Update 2/5/2013: The Washington State Court of Appeals affirmed the argument of marriage being between a male and female in Singer v. Hara: see HeadNote [4] along with its detail.
  

  [4] Marriage -- Nature of Marriage -- Public Policy -- Same-sex Marriages. The legislative purpose behind RCW 26.04, which authorizes marriage only between two persons of different sex, is to give effect to the public policy of marriage being an appropriate and desirable forum for procreation and rearing of children. The prohibition of same-sex marriages results from the impossibility of procreation.

• Update 2/9/2013: Florida judge approves birth certificate listing three parents)
• Update 6/29/2014: The Brave New World of Three-Parent I.V.F.
• Update 11/7/2014: 6th Circuit Echoes Porkopolis' Arguments on Rationale for State of Ohio Defining Marriage
• Update 04/26/2015: What is Marriage? in Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol 34, No. 1, pp 245-287