Texas can ban same-sex marriage, Abbott argues, because the state has a legitimate interest in promoting procreation, a biological feature of the pairing of men and women. “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 ...
“The primary purpose of legal marriage in Texas is to generate positive externalities (and avoid negative externalities) for society by encouraging responsible ...
Do you think free access to journalism like this is important? The Texas Observer is known for its fiercely independent, uncompromising work— which we are pleased to provide to the public at no charge in this space. We rely on the generosity of our readers who believe that this work is important. You can chip in for as little as 99 cents a month. If you support this mission, we need your help.
All persons in Texas—regardless of sexual orientation—are subject to the same definition of marriage, and the plaintiffs are as free to marry an opposite-sex spouse as anyone else in the State. I have no idea if Texas will prevail at the Fifth Circuit.
Neither should the Court hesitate to write an opinion that leaves those decision hanging by a thread.
It concludes by stating that the Supreme Court shouldn’t necessarily “announce the overruling of Lawrence and Obergefell if it decides to overrule Roe,” but that it shouldn’t “hesitate to write an opinion that leaves those decisions hanging by a thread.”
Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges “are as lawless as” the Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion in 1973.