Yesterday Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette filed a brief with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in defense of that state’s ban on same-sex marriage. Notably missing from Shuette’s brief is any mention of debunked social researcher Mark Regnerus, who was brutally slapped down by the judge who ultimately overturned the ban. While Shuette makes the usual tired procreation arguments, his brief takes pains not to strongly disparage gay parenting.
“This appeal is not about approval or disapproval of same-sex relationships or sexual orientation. Nor is this appeal about a gay or lesbian individual’s ability to be a parent. This case is not about single moms’ and dads’ ability to raise children. As a society, we wish that all children had loving parents, no matter what their sexual orientation may be. Out of respect for democracy and to be consistent with the restrained and limited role of a federal court judging the rationality of a legislative choice left to the people, this Court should reverse.”
Despite the above, Shuette does say that some voters probably believe that opposite-sex parenting is better.
“A reasonable voter might have thought that it is beneficial when children are raised in a home with both a mom and a dad. Another reasonable voter might have thought that this definition encourages those couples with the inherent ability to have children (i.e., opposite-sex couples) to enter into a committed, exclusive relationship, for the benefit of any children they might have. Or a reasonable voter, even one who supports same-sex relationships, might choose not to change a fundamental building block of society.”
More from the “mom and dad” argument.
“The State has a legitimate interest in marriage precisely because of marriage’s inherent connection to children. The vast majority of children born in Michigan (and the United States and the world) are born as a result of the sexual union of a man and a woman. Promoting marriage as between a man and a woman thus recognizes that every child should have the opportunity to know and have a relationship with his or her biological mother and father, and it increases the likelihood that the most common type of procreation will occur in a long-term, committed relationship. It was reasonable for Michigan voters to think that this is a beneficial setting for children, and thus to link marriage to procreation—the biological fact that every child has a mother and a father.”
Three words not found in Shuette’s brief: God, religion, Christian. The plaintiffs have until June 7th to file their response.