As I reported in today’s Voice, Dallas’ 5th District Court of Appeals has scheduled oral arguments in a high-profile same-sex divorce case, against Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott’s wishes. I have to admit, when I went down to the courthouse last week to pick up copies of the hundreds of pages of briefs in this case, I was hoping to find that the AG’s office had made references to things like man-horse marriage or man-dinosaur sex. At the very least, it would have made for some great headlines. But what I found instead is that the AG’s office seems to go out of its way to be politically correct and avoid language that LGBT people might find offensive. At one point the AG’s office even states that “although people of good faith may reasonably differ on sensitive issues of public policy—states are well within their constitutional authority to define marriage as the union between one man and one woman …”
Still, given the nature of the case, it was impossible for the AG’s office to completely avoid arguments that might be considered inflammatory or just plain ignorant. Here’s an example from the AG’s brief opposing the gay divorce:
“Throughout centuries of human history and across diverse human civilizations, societies have recognized — and their governments have given legal effect and enforcement to — the institution of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. And the reason is neither complicated nor controversial: the naturally procreative relationship between a man and a woman deserves special societal support and protection — both to encourage procreation (without which society cannot survive), and to increase the likelihood that children will be raised by both of their parents, within the context of stable, long-term relationships — interests that are uniquely served through government recognition and enforcement of the union of one man and one woman. …
“In sum, the legal institution of marriage is about biology, not bigotry, much like the federal pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, which protects women, not because the government favors women over men, but because of he basic biological realities about the nature of pregnancy and procreation. (To be sure, the state does not limit the institution of marriage to fertile unions of one man and one woman. But requiring evidence of fertility as a condition of marriage would be inconsistent with longstanding traditions respecting privacy).”
I thought God magically created babies, so marriage wouldn’t really be a biological need? Ok fine that’s not true, but marriage is not a biological need and doesn’t promote procreation. Sex is sex. All animals have sex, humans included, and many have sex to have children and spread their seed. not all animals keep the same mate. Humans and a handful of other species like to think they’re monogamous.
If the AG would like to bring up history, marriage has almost always been about legal contract and power. Marriage by a man to one, or even multiple women, has been about spreading his genes and keeping his own line of inhertiance. It had been used as tools of treaty. And it has been used as a means of money transfer. None of those things have been because they needed to keep the species flourishing.
And in even using the procreation argument, how does two gay men or women marrying each other keep a man and a woman from procreating? Would my marriage to my partner mean the couple next door can’t have sex anymore without thinking about me filing a joint tax return? Oh the horror!
The AG’s argument, and arguments like it, is absurd and illogical when it comes to the rule of law. Marriage, or whatever you choose to call it, is a legal contract filed with a civil government in almost every country on the planet.
I cannot stand when ignorant people try and use history to justify there own prejudices. As though human history is really that static and monolithic. If they really knew anything about marriage, or societal institutions in general, they would recognize that most often times those institutions have to change eventually in to reflect the times they’re in. Marriage, being no exception, has changed from what it used to be and will continue to change to reflect the times, as well as the specific culture you happen to be in, otherwise it will quite simply lose its relevance cease to exist.