Moral disapproval of same-sex couples or of individual homosexuals is not a legitimate state purpose or a rational reason for depriving plaintiffs of their right to choose their spouse,

This was a quote by Judge Ling-Cohen that upheld the right of homosexuals to marry in New York City. Read the full article here

This is a loaded statement. I love it!!!! I think this sencence should be posed in the form a question. Is moral disapproval of same-sex couples or of individuals a legitimate state purpose? The second thing I find interesting is "their right to choose their spouse."

Regarding the former:

I believe that this strikes at the heart of the issue that divides the nation today. The current trend is in the direction of a resounding NO. Believe it not, I agree with this direction. Some wish for a govenment with Christ as the head. I have news for everyone, that was the Catholic Church in the middle ages. It failed for the same reason that Socialism and Communism has failed. This failure is the failure to take into account human nature, aka our sin nature. A theocratic system is only possible when sin is removed from the equation.

Regarding the latter:

In one breath, the Judge makes a statement about how moral approval is not a valid state purpose. In the next breath, Ling-Cohen then goes ahead and takes a moral position by talking about the right to choose a spouse. Why is this a moral position? Marriage between two people of the same sex has not been explicitly defined as a protected legal right by the legislative branch. I can only assume then that Ling-Cohen is speaking of a human right. When you start talking about human rights, you break into the moral domain.


My position on the matter is that it is NOT the job of government to dictate morality beyond what is necessary for the common good of society. On the other hand, it is my opinion that the opinion of Ling-Cohen is bull shit.