Tennessee AG: Inability to Procreate Is 'Rational Explanation for Not Expanding Marriage to Same-Sex Couples'
April 1, 2015 - 10:34 AM
By Lauretta Brown
(CNSNews.com) - Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery III filed a brief of respondents with the U.S. Supreme Court Friday in defense of Tennessee's refusal to recognize same-sex marriage, arguing that "a traditional definition of marriage ensures that when couples procreate, the children will be born into a stable family unit," which the state argues is "a legitimate state interest."
The brief was part of Tanco v. Haslam, one of four landmark lawsuits before the high court on whether the 14th Amendment requires a state to issue same-sex marriage licenses or recognize those issued in other states.
"The fundamental importance of marriage is necessarily linked to the procreative capacity of that man-woman union, and this Court has said that the right to marry is fundamental precisely because marriage and procreation are fundamental to the existence of society," the brief argued.
"The Fourteenth Amendment allows a State to define marriage in the traditional way because the traditional definition is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Marriage cannot be separated from its procreative purpose, and the inherently procreative capacity of opposite-sex couples cannot be denied," it stated.
"Maintaining a traditional definition of marriage ensures that when couples procreate, the children will be born into a stable family unit, and the promotion of family stability is certainly a legitimate state interest. The same situation is simply not presented by same-sex couples, who as a matter of pure biology do not naturally procreate. So there exists a rational explanation for not expanding marriage to same-sex couples," the brief concluded.
The brief also cited past Supreme Court cases that were based on the traditional definition of marriage and its link to procreation.
The brief pointed out that in the 1967 Loving v. Virginia case as well as Zablocki v. Redhail (1978), and Turner v. Safley (1987), the petitioners relied on the traditional definition of marriage in support of the proposition that they have the right to marry the person of their choice.
"Moreover, the Court's reason for deeming the right to marry fundamental has undoubtedly been based on the procreative capacity of that man-woman relationship. See Zablocki, 434 U.S. at 386 ("A decision to marry and raise the child in a traditional family setting must receive . . . protection."); Loving, 388 U.S. at 12 ("Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."); Maynard, 125 U.S. at 211 ("[Marriage] is an institution, in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.")"
The respondent's brief gives a preview for the upcoming oral arguments which will be heard before the Supreme Court April 28th along with arguments regarding the same-sex marriage bans in Ohio, Kentucky, and Michigan.
This post was edited on 4/2 10:29 AM by bigbadjohn45
April 1, 2015 - 10:34 AM
By Lauretta Brown
(CNSNews.com) - Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery III filed a brief of respondents with the U.S. Supreme Court Friday in defense of Tennessee's refusal to recognize same-sex marriage, arguing that "a traditional definition of marriage ensures that when couples procreate, the children will be born into a stable family unit," which the state argues is "a legitimate state interest."
The brief was part of Tanco v. Haslam, one of four landmark lawsuits before the high court on whether the 14th Amendment requires a state to issue same-sex marriage licenses or recognize those issued in other states.
"The fundamental importance of marriage is necessarily linked to the procreative capacity of that man-woman union, and this Court has said that the right to marry is fundamental precisely because marriage and procreation are fundamental to the existence of society," the brief argued.
"The Fourteenth Amendment allows a State to define marriage in the traditional way because the traditional definition is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Marriage cannot be separated from its procreative purpose, and the inherently procreative capacity of opposite-sex couples cannot be denied," it stated.
"Maintaining a traditional definition of marriage ensures that when couples procreate, the children will be born into a stable family unit, and the promotion of family stability is certainly a legitimate state interest. The same situation is simply not presented by same-sex couples, who as a matter of pure biology do not naturally procreate. So there exists a rational explanation for not expanding marriage to same-sex couples," the brief concluded.
The brief also cited past Supreme Court cases that were based on the traditional definition of marriage and its link to procreation.
The brief pointed out that in the 1967 Loving v. Virginia case as well as Zablocki v. Redhail (1978), and Turner v. Safley (1987), the petitioners relied on the traditional definition of marriage in support of the proposition that they have the right to marry the person of their choice.
"Moreover, the Court's reason for deeming the right to marry fundamental has undoubtedly been based on the procreative capacity of that man-woman relationship. See Zablocki, 434 U.S. at 386 ("A decision to marry and raise the child in a traditional family setting must receive . . . protection."); Loving, 388 U.S. at 12 ("Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."); Maynard, 125 U.S. at 211 ("[Marriage] is an institution, in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.")"
The respondent's brief gives a preview for the upcoming oral arguments which will be heard before the Supreme Court April 28th along with arguments regarding the same-sex marriage bans in Ohio, Kentucky, and Michigan.
This post was edited on 4/2 10:29 AM by bigbadjohn45
