Talk about missing the point:
Utah officials had argued that the state’s definition of marriage was intended to advance state interests in fostering a culture of child-centric marriage in which children would be conceived and raised by their married biological mother and father together in the same home.
The state also argued that retaining the existing definition of marriage was necessary to avoid civic strife and a threat to religious freedom.
Judge Lucero said none of the rationales satisfied the requisite level of scrutiny.
“Several recent district court decisions have rejected nearly identical state attempts to justify same-sex marriage bans based on procreative concerns,” he said.
He added: “A state’s interest in developing and sustaining committed relationships between childbearing couples is simply not connected to its recognition of same-sex marriages.” Lucero said the court could not imagine a scenario in which recognizing same-sex marriages would affect the decision of an opposite-sex couple to have a child, marry, or stay married.
Instead of ripping the institution apart, adding new couples to the ranks of the married would help sustain it and build it up, he said.
“Rather than being mutually exclusive of the procreative potential of marriage, these freedoms – to choose one’s spouse, to decide whether to conceive or adopt a child, to publicly proclaim an enduring commitment to remain together through thick and thin – reinforce the childrearing family structure,” the judge wrote.
However, the state has other compelling reasons, such as all the other problems endemic in homosexuality, issues that go undiscussed or are glossed over via false propaganda spewed by homosexual activists and their supporters.