The Battle Continues

Now fifteen states have joined the fight to bring marriage equality to the Supreme Court. From HuffPo:

Referring to the First Circuit's holding that Section 3 of DOMA has no demonstrated link to its purported goals of strengthening heterosexual marriage as a "startling conclusion," the brief says the First Circuit "answered the wrong questions" to reach its decision, because in the states' view, "the panel below simply needed to ask why Congress sought to incentivize traditional marriages and whether that rationale extends to same-sex couples." In their view, the case turns on whether there are important differences between same-sex and opposite-sex couples, and they offer the ability to procreate as one important distinction. To the states the definition of marriage is "based on an understanding that civil marriage recognition arises from the need to encourage biological parents to remain together for the sake of their children." The 15 states argue that there is no government interest in promoting marriage just for the sake of it, without reference to procreative purposes. And they suggest that because same-sex couples can't procreate, it's reasonable to leave the distinction of being "married" solely to opposite-sex couples.

There are so many holes in this I don't know where to begin.

First of all, the "procreation" argument just simply doesn't pertain. Look at the out-of-wedlock births statistics for, say, Texas, and tell me that people need a license to make babies. As for providing a safe, nurturing environment for raising children, same-sex couples are just as capable of that as opposite-sex couples, Mark Regnerus' hit job notwithstanding. And, as I may have pointed out before, gay men and lesbians are perfectly able to procreate, and there are at this point hundreds, if not thousands, of couples raising children conceived either through IVF or surrogacy. (Or, for that matter, the old-fashioned way.)

The idea that the definition of marriage as an opposite-sex only institution is based on a need to encourage biological parents to remain together is simply nonsensical -- DOMA does nothing on that score, and there's no indication that recognition of same-sex marriages will somehow discourage opposite-sex couples from getting married -- for whatever reasons they may have.

I picked this up from the brief:

Review is justified not only because the decision below invalidated a federal statute, but also because it denies any relationship between DOMA and responsible procreation, and thereby casts doubt on all traditional marriage laws.

(Emphasis added.)

As far as anyone has been able to determine, there is no relationship between DOMA and responsible procreation.

Be interesting to see how this turns out -- and with this Court, who knows?

Here's the brief:

12-13 Fifteen States