Court arguments reveal how misogyny is at the heart of opposition to marriage equality

Arizona and Texas are the latest states to be defending their same sex marriage bans in federal court. Things haven’t gone well for foes of equality lately, as foes of equality lose in state after state, most recently in Virginia. Attorneys in Arizona and Texas obviously see what’s coming and are resorting to desperately hiding behind children and slut-shaming.

Here are anti-equality attorneys in AZ arguing why same sex partners shouldn’t be allowed to marry:

Papers filed in federal court defending the ban say voters, in approving the constitutional amendment in 2008, are entitled to “define marriage for their community.’’ But the lawyers also are arguing to U.S. District Court Judge John Sedwick there’s a public purpose in the state getting into the business of regulating private relationships: Ensuring that children are, whenever possible, raised by a biological mother and biological father.

“Only man-woman couples are capable of furthering the state’s interest in linking children to both of their biological parents,’’ argued attorneys from the Alliance Defending Freedom. And they said the vast majority of such couples produce their own biological children.

Of course this is complete hogwash, since the state allows infertile straight couples and those unwilling to procreate to marry, but Alliance Defending Freedom has no problem letting 92 year old Betty White marry a guy because, well, see for yourself:

“For instance, many man-woman couples who do not plan to have children may experience unintended pregnancies or may simply change their minds,’’ the legal brief says. It also says “modern medical advances’’ might affect otherwise infertile couples.”

Attorney General Greg Abbott, who is running for Governor of Texas, takes the “dear God what about the children?!” gambit one further by strongly implying that gay marriage would lead to more women wantonly procreating sans husband:

Back in court to defend Texas’ ban on gay marriage, Attorney General Greg Abbott is arguing that the restriction is designed to promote responsible procreation, not to demean same-sex couples — a tactic that has already been rejected by two federal appeals courts.

Nonetheless, Abbott relies heavily on the argument as Texas prepares to defend the ban at the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is populated by judges that are considered to be far more conservative than most other federal appeals courts.

“By recognizing and encouraging the lifelong commitment between a man and woman — even when they do not produce offspring — the state encourages others who will procreate to enter into the marriage relationship,” Abbott said in the state’s first brief, filed late Monday at the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Promoting opposite-sex marriages “increases the likelihood that children will be born into stable environments where they are raised by their mother and their father,” Abbott argued.

Such family structures are good for the children’s well being and good for the state because they increase the likelihood that parents, not society, “will bear the cost of raising these children,” the brief said.

“Because same-sex relationships do not naturally produce children, recognizing same-sex marriage does not further these goals to the same extent that recognizing opposite-sex marriage does,” Abbott said.

No gay marriage because it’ll lead to more single women popping out kids and going on welfare! This sick thing is there’s a chance it might work, especially in such a conservative court. Wrapping their religious fascism in slut-punishing has been so wildly successful for the Religious Right that why wouldn’t they find a way to weave it into every item on their agenda? Wouldn’t surprise me if they just straight up started calling same sex marriage an “abortifacient”.