Katherine Kersten: I'm So Happy I Almost Peed

Katherine Kersten is really happy. She's ecstatic that the New York Court of Appeals decided that same-sex couples do not have a right to marriage. She even wrote about it: "Pay attention to New York court on same-sex marriage"

Kersten says, "the Court of Appeals defied expectations, sending a shock wave across the country." Disappointment? Yes. A Shockwave? No, not really.

Katherine Kersten: "First, said the court, the state can treat heterosexual and homosexual couples differently because they are, in fact, different. 'Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children,' the court pointed out, while 'homosexual intercourse does not.'"

This, of course, assumes that all 'homosexuals' engage in 'homosexual intercourse' exclusively. There are many, many, many children of LGBT people that resulted from heterosex before the 'homosexual' came out of the closet. The same closet that Katherine Kersten spends her time reinforcing, is the same closet that encourages LGBT people to 'play straight' and make babies.

Katherine Kersten says: "Second, a legislature can adopt the 'common-sense premise' that children will do best with a mother and father in the home. 'Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like,' wrote the court."

The court did use those words, but they also went on to say: "These [same-sex] couples can become parents by adoption, or by artificial insemination or other technological marvels, but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse. The Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples, and thus that promoting stability in opposite sex relationships will help children more. This is one reason why the Legislature could rationally offer the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples only."

So, the court basically says that because more heterosexuals are bad parents, NY needs to make their marriages stronger. It doesn't make too much sense, but at least they admit that it's the heterosexuals that are creating unstable environments for children, not same-sex couples, which they follow up with this statement:

"The Legislature could also find that such [opposite sex] relationships are all too often casual or temporary."

Plus, should courts really be using 'intuition'?

Katherine Kersten says: "Finally, the court rejected the oft-heard claim that laws limiting marriage to male-female couples are akin to racial bigotry. Laws barring interracial marriage were a by-product of historical injustice, it said. Marriage between a man and a woman -- 'an accepted truth for almost everyone who has ever lived' -- is not."

There have been no historical injustices against LGBT people? Whew! We can all sleep better at night. Oh, wait. In a bigots mind, there aren't really LGBT people anyway, only perverts, so it's understandable that Kersten can ignore history.