Texas AG says same-sex marriage ban reduces out-of-wedlock births

[NCLefty]

AUSTIN — Texas Attorney General and GOP gubernatorial candidate Greg Abbott says the state’s ban on same-sex marriage is in the state’s interest because it reduces out-of-wedlock” births.

In a brief Friday filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Abbott says legalizing same-sex marriage would would do little or nothing to encourage heterosexual couples to get married and have children, reports The Houston Chronicle.

But despite that assertion, Abbott tells the court he “is not required to show that recognizing same-sex marriage will undermine heterosexual marriage,” noting that “it is enough if one could rationally speculate that opposite-sex marriages will advance some state interest to a greater extent than same-sex marriages will.”

[link:http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/10/texas-ag-says-same-sex-marriage-ban-reduces-out-of-wedlock-births/|

[riversedge]

1. Up is down and down is UP in the teaparty!

But despite that assertion, Abbott tells the court he “is not required to show that recognizing same-sex marriage will undermine heterosexual marriage,” noting that “it is enough if one could rationally speculate that opposite-sex marriages will advance some state interest to a greater extent than same-sex marriages will.”

“First, Texas’s marriage laws are rationally related to the State’s interest in encouraging couples to produce new offspring, which are needed to ensure economic growth and the survival of the human race,” Abbott wrote.

[...]

“Second, Texas’s marriage laws are rationally related to the State’s interest in reducing unplanned out-of-wedlock births. By channeling procreative heterosexual intercourse into marriage, Texas’s marriage laws reduce unplanned out-of-wedlock births and the costs that those births impose on society. Recognizing same-sex marriage does not advance this interest because same-sex unions do not result in pregnancy.”

Abbott concedes that same-sex marriage might have some positive effects, such as providing a more stable environment for children raised by gay couples. But he said, it’s for the Legislature, not the courts, to decide whether to expand the right to marry............

[okasha]

2. No point in trying to follow Abbott's logic here.

There isn't any.

[haele]

3. Errr...what? This argument spins on its head.

The primary reason for marriage between a man and a woman is for Gawd-ordained procreation, which is why the Texas AG is against same sex marriage.
Out of wedlock births come from heterosexual sex when the couple is not married.

If the state's interest is that people make babies by having sex only in wedlock, what in the Wide World of Sports does same sex marriage have to do with making babies?

One can also rationally speculate that the Texas AG just indicated that heterosexual couples must show that they can and are willing to have babies before they can get married by getting pregnant before they get married, as that will advance some state interest to a greater extent than infertile same-sex couples, or widows or divorcees getting re-married after menopause, or an opposite sex couple who are married just for companionship and do not want to have children.

All that being said, one can certainly rationally speculate that the Texas AG has his head so far up his ass his brain has been affected by all the methane - literally, his brain is farting.

This guy passed the Texas Bar? F'n hell, that means my three-year old grand-daughter can probably pass the Texas Bar.
Sorry Texas.

Haele

[Lil Missy]

4. Wait, wut?

[shenmue]

5. Um because what?

Am I missing something?

[JimDandy]

6. All kinds of pretzel twisting there. n/t

[Fearless]

7. I think he just broke logic.

[RKP5637]

8. Yet another WTF from one void of logic. n/t