Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has revived his fight against same-sex marriage when told a panel of judges at the US 5th Circuit court that marriage should only exist between those who can produce life.
In his brief submitted to the federal appeals court, Abbott reasons that the law was intended to protect children by promoting traditional marriage between men and women who procreate.
San Antonio attorney Neel Lane, who represents two same-sex couples fighting to have that ban on same-sex marriage removed.
“When this law was passed no one was talking about promoting responsible procreation and child rearing, that wasn’t the purpose, the purpose was to gain a political advantage by vilifying gays and lesbians," Lane said.
In February, San Antonio Federal District Judge Orlando Garcia ruled the ban is a violation of the equal protection clause in the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment. Abbott appealed that decision to US 5th Circuit Court.
In his brief, Abbott also said that, "This case is not about whether Texas should recognize same-sex marriage, but about who decides," referring 2005 state referendum.
“The attorney general argued that because there was a statewide referendum and a vote that outlawed anything resembling same-sex marriage that somehow that’s enough, that the federal constitution shouldn’t address that inequality that was created by the law," Lane said.
In his brief, Abbott writes that the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause only requires that state law be "rationally related to a legitimate state interest." He argues the state satisfies that rationale by supporting opposite-sex marriages, thus increasing the likelihood that couples will produce children, "and that they will do so in the context of stable, lasting relationships. "
Plaintiffs attorneys have until September 2 to file their written briefs with the court.
Read the entire appellate brief below: