It’s a big day for marriage equality cases as the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals hears arguments in five cases covering the constitutionality of bans on marriage for same-sex couples in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. Approximately 18,300 children of same-sex couples and nearly 52,400 same-sex couples could be impacted by the outcome, according to UCLA’s Williams Institute.
And here’s a lovely quote from the “friend of the court” briefs that the Williams Institute filed for each of the cases, reminding us that marriage equality is not just about sexual orientation, but also about gender:
One of the most serious ways in which laws that exclude same-sex couples from marriage demean gay, lesbian, and bisexual persons is by enforcing gender-based expectations in the roles that men and women play in families. State enforcement of such stereotypes and expectations — through exclusionary marriage laws and other discriminatory government actions — communicates to gay, lesbian, and bisexual persons, their children, and their communities that there is something wrong with a core part of their identity and being. Such government actions communicate that gay, lesbian, and bisexual persons do not measure up to what a man or a woman should be and that their most important relationships are “less worthy.”
Hear, hear.
With so many recent court victories for marriage equality, it’s tempting to think of these cases as a done deal — but personally, I’m not going to rest easy until the Supreme Court decides (or refuses to take further cases on marriage equality on the grounds that there is no conflict among the circuit courts). Even so, I think the opposition is running out of arguments. Saying that marriage is the best institution in which to raise children and then trying to keep so many children from having married parents makes no sense — and there’s no credible evidence that children do better with one father and one mother than with two of the same. (See the gender quote above.) And the “responsible procreation” argument — that different-sex couples need marriage so they don’t pop out babies willy-nilly, whereas same-sex couples can’t have babies by accident and therefore don’t need marriage — is even more ridiculous.
Ridiculous or not, we must still wait for Lady Justice to test her scales. Best of luck to the plaintiffs in today’s hearing and to all of the same-sex couples in all four states.
