Monday, February 03, 2014

11 Attorneys General Sign Federal Court Brief Defending "Natural' Marriage"

9th Circuit States
In the wake of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling in SmithKline Beechum Corp. v. Abbott Laboratories last month, the gay haters are racing forward to file briefs in support of discriminatory same sex marriage bans in the states within the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.  Among the throng are eleven (11) state attorney generals who want to protect "natural marriage" and who make the same "slippery slope" arguments as religious extremists and lunatics like Rick Santorum.  Behind all of the rhetoric ultimately, the sole reason for anti-gay bigotry is religious based hatred and small-mindedness.  The Salt Lake Tribune looks at this unfortunate effort by those who ought to be seeking to uphold the legal protections of all citizens, not just Christofascists.  Note the ridiculous twisting of Loving v. Virginia.  Here are excerpts:

The top law officers in 11 states — including Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes — argue in a Nevada case that no fundamental right to same-sex marriage exists and that allowing such unions will lead to "any group of adults" seeking that status and the "tragic deconstruction" of marriage.

"If public affirmation of anyone and everyone’s personal love and commitment is the single purpose of civil marriage, a limitless number of rights claims could be set up that evacuate the term ‘marriage’ of any meaning," the attorneys general said in a newly filed amicus brief in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

And once "natural limits" are gone, "it follows that any group of adults would have an equal claim to marriage," the attorneys general said.

The filing may highlight points Utah will make in its opening brief, which is due to be filed Monday in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

In November 2012, U.S. District Judge Robert C. Jones of Nevada ruled the state’s ban, approved by a majority of voters in both 2000 and 2002, is not discriminatory, upholds a legitimate state interest and is, therefore, constitutional.
"Homosexual persons may marry in Nevada, but like heterosexual persons, they may not marry members of the same sex," Jones ruled.. . . . Should marriage rights be expanded, the judge said, it is conceivable that "a meaningful percentage of heterosexual couples would cease to value the civil institution as highly as they previously had and hence enter into it less frequently" with a possible end result being an increase in out-of-wedlock births, single-parent families and property disputes.
The attorneys general said traditional marriage laws do not target sexual orientation per se and thus must be reviewed and upheld if they are based on a rational government interest — that is, procreation and child-rearing.

The attorneys general said barring same-sex marriage is not discriminatory because it treats gays and lesbians equally and is thus unlike the racial bars that were overturned in Loving v. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that found prohibiting interracial marriage was unconstitutional.

While the lower court judge also "paradoxically" found that "at most" Nevada’s law was aimed at maintaining "heterosexual superiority or ‘heteronormativity,’" the attorneys general said, there is no basis for "deducing any such discriminatory intent" in the state’s law.

The 9th Circuit Court’s recent decision in another case, which drew on Windsor in concluding that it was unconstitutional to bar a prospective juror because of sexual orientation, doesn’t apply, the attorneys general said.   "These technical, doctrinal inquiries only confirm what common sense tells us: traditional marriage arises from concern for opposite-sex couples, not same-sex couples," they said.

1 comment:

BJohnM said...

i'm no attorney, but, to me, it seems to follow that if the only claim of government interest you can raise is "procreation," then you need to have a requirement of marriage to be "procreation."

Absent that requirement, I, as a judge, could not entertain that argument. Obviously, your stated rational government interest isn't rational enough to merit that being an actual requirement of marriage.