effect on the procreation and child-rearing practices of opposite-sex married (or unmarried) couples. See Perry II, 671 F.3d at 1088, 2012 WL 372713, at *21 (“There is no rational reason to think that taking away the designation of ‘marriage’ from same-sex couples would advance the goal of encouraging ... opposite-sex couples to procreate more responsibly.”) To the extent some people may have a bias in favor of preferring biological parents over other couples, there is no such recognition of this distinction under federal or state law. See id. There has been no showing that DOMA alters any state or federal law governing childbearing, procreation or family structure. Given the state of the law, the rationale of promoting responsible child-rearing finds no “ ‘footing in t 85, 186 (1971) (<HOLDING>)). Again, the argument that the definition of
holding in a case involving not intraunion politics but rather a matter of an employer requiring the union to carry out the penalty provision of a collective bargaining agreement that the statutory term otherwise disciplined is narrowly confined to regulatory actions that affect a union members rights or status as a member of the union that the sanctions imposed were employmentrelated rather than internal union related and that the safeguards in  411a5 were not available for such action holding that the law to be applied in determining the validity of  an outofstate marriage is the law of the state in which the marriage occurred holding that a vermont civil union is not the equivalent of a marriage holding that as long as alleged breach of a continuing duty occurred within six years of the filing of the lawsuit the claim is timely holding that the institution of marriage as a union of man and woman uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family is as old as the book of genesis