Lone Star State adds voices to gay marriage case
Politicians, activists file friend-of-the-court briefs on the case.
Texas’ gay-marriage ban isn’t among the four cases being argued Tuesday in Washington, but the Lone Star State has added its voice to the vigorous de- bate being waged before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Texas politic ians, activists, businesses and others are urging the court’s nine justices to scrap or save state laws and constitutional amendments that prohibit same-sex marriages and deny recognition of gay unions legally performed in 37 states that allow the practice.
Their contributions were among 150 friend-of-the-court briefs on gay marriage.
Some made purely legal arguments; others focused on the social implications of allowing gays and lesbians to marry.
All of the briefs cast an eye toward June, when the high court is expec ted to determine whether same-sex couples can legally marry in all 50 states.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, in a brief joined by 14 other attorneys general, urged the court to tread lightly because the issue of gay marriage is best decided by each state.
“To resolve it instead through federal judicial decree would demean the democratic process, marginalize the views of millions of Americans and do incalculable damage to our civic life in this country,” the state officials said.
On the other side, 46 same-sex couples, including Vic Holmes and Mark Phariss of Plano, argued that the leave-it-to-the-states approach overlooks the Constitution’s promise of equal protection for all citizens and ignores the “real and deep harms” state marriage bans inflict on same-sex couples and their children.
“This denial stigmatizes gay and lesbian couples and classifies them as second-class citizens,” said the brief by the couples, all of whom had sued to overturn bans in their states. “They are denied the dignity of standing before friends, family and their communities and entering into a legally recognized marriage.”
Members of Congress
Members of Congress, unsurprisingly divided along party lines, filed briefs arguing both sides of the issue.
Fifty-seven Republicans, including U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and U.S. Rep. Bill Flores of Bryan, noted that over the past 15 years, 31 states passed laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.
States, the lawmakers said, have in the past refused to recognize marriages performed elsewhere as a matter of public policy, such as those involving first cousins, polygamists or spouses under a certain age.
“Redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships … would set an unwarranted precedent, with effects far beyond this case, of federal encroachment into a traditional area of state con- cern,” the Republicans wrote.
More than 200 Democrats, including U.S. Reps. Lloyd Doggett of Austin and Joaquin Castro of San Antonio, argued that marriage bans unfairly deny Social Security and military benefits, as well as a host of other benefits intended to strengthen family bonds, to same-sex couples.
What’s more, they wrote, states that decline to recognize samesex marriages legally performed elsewhere place gay couples at risk when they move or travel to states like Texas — denying access to tax breaks, welfare benefits or the right to make medical decisions for a spouse in case of an emergency.
“Opposition to a particular group is not a valid basis for legislation,” the Democrats wrote. “These bans impair family stability and mobility and harm children, an estimated 220,000 of whom are being raised by same-sex couples.”
Advocates, mayors, business leaders
Conservative organizations asked the court to protect the ban on samesex marriage.
Texas Eagle Forum and Steven Hotze, founder of Conservative Republicans of Texas, warned that a decision allowing gay marriage would engulf the country in a “full conflagration,” particularly along regional lines.
“If the court imposes homosexual marriage on Texas and other Southern states, then at a minimum (those states) will also take steps to protect their Christian businesses, schools and churches,” their brief said.
Texas Values warned that same-sex marriage follows from the same liberal world view as “nofault divorce, legalized abortion, subsidies for contraception, tolerance of nonmarital sexual relations and subsidizing outof-wedlock births through the welfare state.”
While a celebration of love and commitment is a happy side effect of marriage, Texas Values added, the institution is intended to promote responsible childbirth and discourage out-of-wedlock children, “ensuring that child rearing occurs in stable, intact families with both a mother and father.”
But 226 mayors, including those from Dallas and Houston, argued that denying marriage to samesex couples “undermines the dignity and respect that government owes everyone.”
“Gay and lesbian couples live in all of our communities, where they raise children, support each other in sickness and in health, combine assets (and) buy homes,” the mayors wrote. “The stability of these family units directly benefits municipalities.”
No Central Texas mayors signed the brief.
A brief by 379 companies — including American Airlines and the Kim- berly-Clark Corp. among a dozen Texas businesses — said gay-marriage bans place them at a competitive disadvantage by hampering efforts to recruit and keep qualified employees.
“Diversity is crucial to innovation and marketplace success,” the companies wrote. “Marriage discrimination drives talented individuals away from jurisdictions in which (we) do business.”