Some of my best friends are…

gay? infertile? adopting? menopausal? childfree? Well, apparently, for the purpose of getting married, none of the aforementioned are considered eligible in the states of Washington or New York. The Supreme Courts of the states of Washington and New York have just ruled against same-sex marriage by defining marriage as a relationship entered into for the purpose of “furthering” procreation. Period.

Let me quote from the Washington state ruling for you, written by Justice Barbara Madsen: “Limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to the 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.”

As one of my favorite syndicated columnists, Ellen Goodman, pointed out this week: the language of this ruling may attempt to exclude only gay couples from the act of “procreationist marriage” (although I know plenty of gay couples who are raising happy and healthy children as we speak), but in fact it has the technical effect of excluding all couples who are incapable or uninterested or unwilling to procreate from participating in marriage as well.

First and foremost, let me say that–as both an infertile woman and an adopting parent–I feel I am in good company with the gay, the menopausal, and the childfree person. Trust me, I am not bristling at being associated with so-called social or moral outcasts.

On the one hand, I know full well that both infertility and adoption turn you into a social outcast of sorts–witness all the asswipe comments both infertiles and adopting parents have to deal with on a regular basis, which all have the effect of highlighting difference: “If God intended you to be parents, you would be“…”Can’t you have your own children?“…”Bless you for saving her.” Those persons who have endured infertility and/or who have chosen to adopt defy what’s considered culturally normative. And, so, they’re marginalized–not in the same way or to the same extent that a gay person is marginalized, or that a childfree person is marginalized, but marginalized nonetheless.

On the other hand, what I am bristling at is the decision to expand the parameters of the exclusionary language to encompass a larger group of people, rather than just ruling that the right to marry extends to all people. Why do we continue to dig ourselves into deeper and deeper pits of injustice?

This ruling just seems so transparent to me. There are no logical arguments for why same-sex marriage should be illegal, and so we resort to a definition of marriage that effectively bars any two people who can’t or won’t have biological babies from experiencing it. So, sorry, no luck to the 70-somethings who fall in love later in life. Nope, can’t do it. Sorry, too, to the couple with the tied tubes and the vasectomy. Oh!–and to the couple who both happen to be women and who are raising biological children together? Errr…nope to you, too. We’re certainly not talking about that sort of biology.

As for adoption, Goodman writes, “the states’ other interest is in families ‘headed by the children’s biological parents.’ Why then give [marriage] licenses to the couples who are raising 1.5 million adopted children?”

Sorry, folks. But this emperor has no clothes.