Perhaps the state of Utah is confused about what allowing gay marriage means. To read the state’s arguments opposing the notion, it would seem that Utah believes that allowing gay marriage could compel unwilling couples to enter one, at the expense of heterosexual marriage, good parenting and responsible sexual behavior. While certainly an interesting line of logic, those arguments appear to lack much legal relevance to the state’s request to disallow gay marriage in Utah.
The state is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriages, after a federal district court judge ruled the ban unconstitutional for its failure to provide equal protection under the law to gay couples. Utah is appealing Judge Robert J. Shelby’s ruling, and the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will take up the matter, but in the meantime, the Supreme Court is allowing the ban to stand. As far as legal processes go, that all makes sense. The line of arguments that Utah has offered to the various courts is another matter.
In its first attempt, with Shelby, the state argued that “the traditional definition of marriage reinforces responsible procreation,” thereby giving children – planned and, “especially unplanned” – a leg up by way of stable families. Shelby did not argue with that notion, especially, but did not accept the premise that same-sex marriages would compromise it in any way.
Further, the argument contains the very glaring omission that evolving marriage definitions may well provide for those same shared values and benefits. There is, simply, no evidence to suggest that “non-traditional” marriages do not also encourage such good things.
Next, Utah posited to the Supreme Court, when asking for a stay of Shelby’s ruling, that research confirms what “the state, its citizens and virtually all of society have, until recently, believed about the importance of providing unique encouragement and protection for man-woman unions: (a) that children do best across a range of outcomes when they are raised by their father and mother (biological or adoptive), living together in a committed relationship and, (b) that limiting the definition of marriage to man-woman unions, though it cannot guarantee that outcome, substantially increases the likelihood that children will be raised in that environment.”
The “science” in question notwithstanding, Utah’s argument seems to imply that by disallowing same-sex marriages, the thwarted couples would disband and find heterosexual partners to wed and that happy, healthy children would result. The logic does not follow.
Finally, Utah attempted to use the Supreme Court’s averred commitment to diversity – in the form of affirmative action – as a foundation for gender diversity in parenting. “Society has long recognized that diversity in education brings a host of benefits to students,” the state wrote in its brief. “If that is true in education, why not in parenting?” An interesting question, indeed. Its relevance in this case is unclear, though. And if the question is followed to its logical conclusion, is Utah arguing for all sorts of parental diversity? If so, does that apply to racial, religious or other forms of diversity?
The net effect of Utah’s arguments defending its ban on gay marriage – at least those that touch on the notion of the unions themselves – is to suggest that the state is plain squeamish about the concept and, perhaps, a bit confused about its implications for heterosexual couples. It would, perhaps, behoove Utah to focus instead on the limits of state’s rights.
