Texas Same Sex Marriage Ban Struck Down

Two of the Texas plaintiffs

 UPDATED: Here's the language the Court uses to demolish the usual proffered justifications for anti-gay discrimination:

Defendants in this case have identified two bases or purposes for Section 32: (1) to increase the likelihood that a mother and a father will be in charge of childrearing; and (2) to encourage stable family environments for responsible procreation. These bases fail rational basis review as explained below.

(1) Childrearing

There is no doubt that the welfare of children is a legitimate state interest; however, limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples fails to further this interest. Instead, Section 32 causes needless stigmatization and humiliation for children being raised by the loving same-sex couples being targeted. See Bostic, 2014 WL 561978, at * 18. "Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners." Perry, 704 F. Supp. 2d at 967. Homosexual couples are as capable as other couples of raising well-adjusted children. See id. at 980 ("Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted"); Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862, 899 (Iowa 2009) ("Plaintiffs presented an abundance of evidence and research, confirmed by our independent research, supporting the proposition that the interests of children are served equally by same-sex parents and opposite-sex parents.")  Defendants have not provided any evidentiary support for their assertion that denying marriage to same-sex couples positively affects child rearing.

[T]his Court finds that far from encouraging a stable environment for child rearing, Section 32 denies children of same-sex parents the protections and stability they would enjoy if their parents could marry.

Furthermore, Defendants' proffered reason fails rational basis because Defendants have failed to establish how recognizing a same-sex marriage can influence, if at all, whether heterosexual couples will marry, or how other individuals will raise their families.

(2) Procreation

The procreation argument raised by Defendants also fails. The notion that same-sex marriage will encourage responsible procreation assumes that heterosexual marriage is "naturally procreative." However, procreation is not and has never been a qualification for marriage.  . . . . This procreation rationale threatens the legitimacy of marriages involving post-menopausal women, infertile individuals, and individuals who choose to refrain from procreating. See Bishop, 2014 WL 116013, at *30. These individuals who cannot or will not procreate are allowed to marry under Texas' current laws.

Therefore, Section 32 makes "no sense in light of how [it] treat[s] other groups similarly situated in relevant respects," and consequently, "encouraging stable environments for procreating" does not provide a rational basis for Section 32.

ORIGINAL POST: The dominoes continue to fall as today a federal court in Texas ruled that the Texas gay marriage ban is unconstitutional.  Expect plenty of shrieking and flying spittle from Christofascists circles which must be smarting as it is from all of the blow back against Arizona's Christofascist backed "turn the gays away" bill sitting on Gov. Jan Brewer's desk.  In the ruling, the Court found that there was no rational basis to support Texas' intentionally discriminatory ban,  Here are highlights from Huffington Post followed by the text of the Court's 48 page opinion (I will have further commentary once I read the opinion in full this evening):

U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia ruled Wednesday that Texas' ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, the Houston Chronicle and the Dallas Morning News report.

Garcia issued a preliminary injunction on the state's ban, citing Supreme Court precedent. However, Garcia issued a stay on his order, meaning the ban will remain in effect pending appeal.

“Today’s court decision is not made in defiance of the great people of Texas or the Texas Legislature, but in compliance with the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court precedent,” Garcia wrote in the order. “Without a rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose, state-imposed inequality can find no refuge in our U.S. Constitution.”

Texas Gay Marriage Ruling