Texas AG Greg Abbott Files Brief Defending State’s Gay Marriage Ban

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott filed a brief on Monday defending the state's gay marriage ban, LoneStarQ reports:

AbbottAbbott’s office filed its initial brief Monday appealing U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia’s February decision, which found that Texas’ marriage bans violate the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.

Abbott’s appeal was filed on the same day that the 4th U.S. Circuit Court struck down Virginia’s ban as unconstitutional, becoming the third federal appeals court to rule in favor of marriage equality. In its 42-page brief filed Monday, Abbott’s office argues that the issue should be settled by voters and state legislatures, not the courts.

The American Statesman reports on the filing, which focused on the thus-far failed conservative argument that marriage's purpose is procreation:

“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.

LoneStarQ also notes that "Abbott’s office rejected the delivery of 5,200 petitions calling for him to stop defending Texas’ bans on same-sex marriage."

Read the brief below:

14-50196 #14288


  1. simon says

    Promoting one group while excluding another is the definition of discrimination. It is a tired argument used by the Catholic Church which has no place in a court.

  2. Johnnybegood says

    From what I could find…this clown has no biological kids…one adopted. Isn’t it interesting that he chose the phrase “even when they do not produce offspring” in his opening statement. Of course…what else would you expect…but pretty transparent.

  3. johnny says

    Hanging out that ol’ red herring again?

    The one where marriage is only about the children?

    But let’s just ignore the over 1000 other benefits that are given to legally married couples?

    Doesn’t that pretty much negate all the hetero marriages that aren’t about children at all?

    Such utter bullsh*t.

  4. Mitch says

    Mr. AG, based on your logic, it must also be true, “By recognizing and encouraging the lifelong commitment between two people — even when they do not produce offspring — the state encourages others who will procreate to enter into the marriage relationship.”

  5. Paul B. says

    As long as the marriage consists of an authentic & anatomically correct pussy & penis…we’ll recognize it. No others need apply! Cue vomit.

  6. mike says

    They love making the argument that straight relationships are more ‘stable’ than gay ones…maybe if you allowed us to legally get married we might feel or even appear more stable to you? Oh i see….if that happened your inchoate arguments would dissolve….

  7. Daniel Berry, NYC says

    This is the kind of “reasoning” that has been laughed out of every Federal Court that has heard one of these cases. The opposition keeps making this kind of nonsensical claims, and, luckily, the men and women sitting on the Federal Bench (no matter who they were appointed by, apparently) have the ability to see through it and say it has no merit.

    Evidently in Texas..ohwhats’theuse…

  8. disgusted american says

    this basically reminds me of Australia’s Treatment for decades upon decades of the aborigeni peoples…..native to Australia and treated like 2nd class citizens in Almost Every aspect of Australian Life…..

  9. Randy says

    “No, really, seriously, we really really believe marriage is about the kids and nothing more. Let me emphasize that for the court.”

    See, if they write a brief like that, it win over the judges, i guess.

  10. Paul B. says

    I just read through most of this brief. I couldn’t find a single original argument…it was all from prior cases and briefs…just reiterated and plagiarized from prior briefs. And…the courts have consistently denied their claims based on these arguments. Well, maybe if we hit our heads against this wall one more time…we’ll get results. NYET!

  11. says

    Why don’t any of these buffoons know that these arguments never win? Haven’t they been to law school? Do they know about precedents?

  12. ToThePoint says

    “the state encourages others who will procreate to enter into the marriage relationship”. Well that means we should be able to marry, because we are gay……NOT sterile……so we can and DO procreate!

  13. JJ says

    @MITCH beat me to it. :-) If you accept the claim that allowing some couples to wed encourages fertile couples to wed, then you should conclude that allowing all couples to wed will encourage fertile couples to wed that much more. Not that it matters. The state can’t deny people equal rights on the basis that their exercise of those rights won’t encourage others to do the same.

  14. Padraig says

    That’ll go down in flames,Greg. Your arguments are so tired- Re: Texas anti-sodomy statute: big fail. I’m waiting for a bunch of judges to slap your brief out of court and make you t he complete laughingstock you truly are,Mr.Abbott.