Under this standard, DOMA is constitutional because the legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children's biological parents. Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not, in the legislature's view, further these purposes.

That's from the court ruling, if I'm looking at the right one.

I don't agree with denying homosexuals the ability to get married. However, I also don't agree with the reasoning used by this group. If I could find where the ruling says that marriage is "only for procreation" then I would rethink that. I don't even have a problem with the tactics, if they did it right.

Here's the part of the ruling that I think stands out as idiotic and should be attacked: "limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation." How the hell do you come to that concusion? Because by refusing to let them marry they're going to say, "eh, I might as well try being straight and pop out some kids"? I agree with some stuff, like "Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not, in the legislature's view, further these purposes," but the earlier statement implies that it not only doesn't further those purposes, but hinders them. I don't agree. None of the laws they're proposing actually addresses that, however.

Maybe I'm missing it, because I'll admit I have not had time to read the whole thing, but nowhere in the ruling do I see it stated that marriage is only for procreation. Am I missing it, or is that just an extrapolation? The ruling does say, "Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not, in the legislature's view, further these purposes." Well, yeah, I'd agree, but it doesn't sound like a reason to deny them; at best, it's a reason they needn't go out of their way to encourage them.

Marriage does in fact "encourage families where children are reared in homes headed by the children's biological parents," as the ruling states. Marriage binds together two people who are, presumably, having sex and capable of procreating. By allowing them to be married, you are in fact encouraging that purpose. Note: you are not enforcing it, just encouraging it. The ruling does not state that it should be forced, however, just encouraged. I'd say it's obvious that 1) encouraging parents to raise their children together is a good thing and 2) forcing them to do so is not. Thus, I'd say that "outlawing divorce for couples with children" and "requiring a couple that has a child to become married" are both bad ideas and not logical conclusions to the ruling.

I think this is good for stirring debate and critical thinking on the topic, even if I disagree with the reasoning. I also think that hoping people "choke on their own rhetoric" is juvenile, and even if I agree with their end goal, I think these people should be kicked in the nuts.