Texas GOPers Invoke Pedophilia in Same-Sex Marriage Amicus

TEXAS—In what feels like a frantic bid to convince the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse a lower court ruling that found Texas' marriage laws that say only one man and one woman may legally marry are unconstitutional, 63 Texas legislators have signed an amicus brief filed in the case. Unfortunately, as was noted by lonestarq.com yesterday, "The brief states that U.S. District Judge Orlando L. Garcia’s February decision striking down the marriage bans opened the door to a variety of unions that society has deemed unacceptable."  The authors of the brief further claim, "The district court broadened the definition of the ‘existing right to marry’ as one that includes the right of people to ‘select the partners of their choosing’ for marriage, 'without regard to sex.' If the right to select ‘partners of their choosing’ is the criterion used to invoke marriage as a fundamental right, then marriage restrictions on age, polygamy, and consanguinity are also ripe for challenge.” Elsewhere in the brief, the authors specify what other sorts of restrictions would be up for grabs by noting, "Another ground cited by supporters of Texas’s marriage laws and subsequently dismissed by the district court is that recognition of same-sex marriage 'could lead to the recognition of bigamy, incest, pedophilia, and group marriage[.]' As already discussed in this brief, restrictions on marriage relating to these moral considerations remain valid. Thus, the goal of actively trying to prevent those practices from becoming valid is entirely rational public policy." Obviously sensitive to being accused of outright bigotry, however, the authors of the brief try to mitigate the obvious inferences contained in their comments by adding, "None of this is to say that recognition of pedophilia or other morally reprehensible actions being recognized as valid is actually a logical next step that would follow recognition of same-sex marriages. Rather, it supports the fact that legislators and Texas voters enacted Texas’s marriage laws with the intention of supporting marriage arrangements that they believe support valid goals related to those concerns. Thus, the laws are entirely rational and constitutional." Unfortunately, that explanation only serves to insult the intelligence of the court to which it was addressed as well as anyone else reading it. What they really mean to say is, "Some folks think letting gays marry will lead to bigamy, incest, pedophilia and group marriage, but even though we're not saying that one morally reprehensible action (same-sex marriage) will definitely lead to other morally reprehensible actions (bigamy, incest, pedophilia and group marriage), we need to outlaw same-sex marriage to make sure that dog don't hunt." As spurious an argument as that is, it is all but identical to the larger argument made in the brief, that Texas' marriage laws outlawing same-sex marriage were "not enacted out of animus or for the purpose of making anyone unequal under the law." "To the contrary," claim the 63 legislators, "the laws were enacted with a desire to elevate the state’s legal recognition of marriage to a level that society has celebrated throughout history." Determined to convince the court that the state never intended to discriminate against anyone, or deny anyone their rights, the authors include a quote from Senator Todd Staples, the author of the resolution proposing the state constitutional amendment that was eventually passed, who said of the amendment, "I’m personally bringing this legislation because I believe that we should protect the institution of marriage as it is defined in law today. That we should hold that up higher than any other relationships. I believe that there’s a distinction between intimate association and the right for government to recognize or subsidize any other form of relationship. And I think that is a distinction there. And I think the institution of marriage, as it is defined in law today, should be protected." But even with that, the authors of the brief cannot help but add language that attempts to explain the "higher than any other relationship" comment, obviously concerned that it will be read at face value. They explain, "Holding marriage up 'higher than other relationships' is not the same thing as discriminating out of animosity or bare desire to harm. It is a desire to define, clarify, and celebrate marriage, rather than exclude anyone from it. Texas legislators and voters acted on the former rationale, not the latter." The religious parallels are too obvious to ignore, even if the legislators are too cowardly to invoke them. (Their claim of man-woman marriage as "moral" certainly reveals their underlying religiosity.) Likewise, the tortured (and insulting) logic being used here would only be tolerated by someone who also believes that a higher power provides the authority to the state to deny a higher relationship to same-sex couples, not out of animus or the bare desire to harm them, but to define, clarify and celebrate according to...  and here is where they cannot bring themselves to utter the words that run like a vein through the brief... "god's will." The amicus brief can be read here.